(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Eastside draft environmental impact statement v.2"

BLM LIBRARY 




Hi 




88065595 

Department of 
Agriculture 

Forest Service 



United States 
Department of 



terior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 



Eastside 



7 the interior- - _-■- |»i 



Draft Enviro 




_ J iSfl ILl/.,.._, 



DENVER 







As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of 
our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land 
and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our 
national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The 
Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the 
best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian 
reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. 

BLM/OR/WA/PL-96/037+ 1 792 



The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of 
race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not 
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 
communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office 
of Communications at (202) 720-2791. To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Washingotn, DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). 
USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. 



^H p( 86^5595 



Eastside su 

v. a. 



Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement 

Volume 2 ~ Appendices 



Lead Agencies: 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 
USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington 



Responsible Officials: 

R. Williams, Regional Forester. Forest Service Region 6 
E. Zielinski, Oregon/ Washington State Director, BLM 



For further information contact: 

Jeff Blackwood, Project Manager 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

1 12 E. Poplar Street 

Walla Walla, WA 99362 

Telephone 509/522-4030; Fax 509/ 522-4025 

Email: ICBEMP@bmi.net 

Website: http:/ / www. icbemp.gov 






Contents 



Appendix 1-1 



Appendix 1-2 



Supporting Science, Laws, and Land Use Plans 1 

Introduction 2 

Science 2 

Major Studies of Eastside Ecosystems and Management 2 

Science Integration Team (SIT) Reports 3 

Laws 5 

Land Use Plans 6 

American Indian Background Information 7 

Introduction 8 

General Information Sheets for Affected Tribes in the Eastside 
Planning Area 8 

Federal Court Cases with Applications for Multiple Tribes 15 

Affected ICBEMP Tribes Named as a Party to Federal Court Case 16 

Other Court Cases Relevant to Affected ICBEMP Tribes, Federal 
Agency-Tribal Relations, and Tribal Issues 17 

Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon 19 

Mapl 21 

Coeur d'Alene Tribe of the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, Idaho 22 

Mapl 24 

Map 2 25 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington 26 

Mapl 29 

Map 2 30 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon 31 

Mapl 34 

Map 2 35 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 36 

Mapl 38 

Map 2 39 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation of the 

Yakama Reservation, Washington 40 

Mapl 43 

Map 2 44 

Fort Bidwell Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Bidwell 

Reservation, California 45 

Mapl 47 

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt 

Indian Reservation, Nevada 48 

Mapl 50 

Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation, Washington 51 

Mapl 53 

Map 2 53 

Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon 55 

Mapl 58 

Map 2 59 

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 60 

Mapl 62 

Map 2 63 



Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho 64 

Mapl 67 

Map 2 68 

Pit River Tribe of California 69 

Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation 

of California 71 

Mapl -. 73 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation 74 

Mapl 76 

The Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, Washington 77 

Mapl 79 

Map 2 80 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada 81 

Chronology of Legal Status of American Indian Tribes 82 

Introduction 82 

Laws and Treaties 83 

Evaluating Habitat, Harvestability, and Meeting American Indian 

Needs 92 

Introduction 92 

How Harvestability Can Be Evaluated 92 

Ethno-Habitats ~ A Bridge in Understanding Tribal Issues 94 

Introduction 94 

Description of Ethno-Habitats 94 

Appendix 1-3 Public Involvement 99 

Introduction 100 

Public Involvement Planning 100 

Scoping 101 

Table 1. Project Introduction Meetings from February 15 to 

March 10, 1994 101 

Table 2. Scoping Meetings from May 23 to June 2, 1994 102 

Input During Alternative Development 103 

Concepts for Alternatives 103 

Goals for Alternatives 103 

Themes for Alternatives 103 

Public Briefings and Presentations 104 

Project Briefings 104 

Social Science Symposium 104 

Special Presentations 105 

Sources of Eastside EIS Information 105 

Project Mailing List 105 

Newsletters 105 

Project Information Binders 105 

Electronic Library 106 

Internet 106 

Toil-Free Telephone Number 106 

Intergovernmental Coordination 107 

Federal and State Agencies 107 

Counties 107 

Tribal Governments 107 

Resource Advisory Councils/Provincial Advisory Committees 108 

Input on a Preferred Alternative for the Draft EIS 108 



Appendix 1-4 Issue Identification 109 

Introduction ..110 

Scoping Process HO 

Analysis of Scoping Comments HO 

Issue Development m 

Issues Addressed in the EIS 112 

Appendix 1-5 Benefits and Risks of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project 123 

Appendix 2-1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Species 145 

Table 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Species in 

Oregon and Washington 146 

Table 2. Vascular Plant Species Used in the Evaluation of Alternatives 

for the Eastside Planning Area 147 

Table 3. Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Used in the Evaluation of 

Alternatives for the Eastside Planning Area 148 

Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: State and Forest 

Service Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area 154 

Map 1. Distribution of Borax Lake Chub and Hutton Tui Chub 173 

Map 2. Distribution of Foskett Speckled Dace and Shortnose Sucker 174 

Map 3. Distribution of Lost River Sucker and Warner Sucker 175 

Map 4. Distribution of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 176 

Map 5. Snake River Salmon High Priority Watersheds 177 

Map 6. Critical Habitat for Snake River Spring, Summer, and Fall 

Chinook Salmon and Snake River Sockeye Salmon** 178 

Map 7. Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone - North Cascades 178 

Map 8. Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones Present grizzly bear ecosystems in the 
conterminous 48 States, 1990 180 

Appendix 2-2 Rangeland Succession Models and Noxious Weeds 181 

Succession Models for Rangeland Vegetation 182 

Climax Model 182 

State and Transition Model 182 

Noxious Weed Management 183 

Introduction 183 

Integrated Weed Management 184 

Noxious Weed Control Guidelines for an IWM Strategy 186 

Table A. Broad-scale cover types in the project area and their 
susceptibility to invasion by 25 weed species (24 legally declared 

noxious, plus cheatgrass) 189 

Table B. Description of broad-scale cover types in the project area 
used in Table A to characterize the susceptibility of vegetation 
types to invasion by weed species 192 

Appendix 2-3 Mineral Resources 195 

Introduction 196 

Known Deposits 196 

Metals and Industrial Minerals 196 

Table 1. Summary of Identified, Significant Mineral Deposits in 
the Project Area 196 

s:i;*s:«^ ;■■■■ ■ , --.-.: : ' : . i^-^iv ....■.■-■ ; . . " ■ : ' ■■■\y---\:\^i^\: x 2:..:; : . ■ ■ 



Table 2. Identified, Significant Mineral Deposits in the Project Area 197 

Energy Resources 198 

Geothermal Resources 198 

Table 3. Geothermal Resources with Potential for Development 198 

Oil and Gas 199 

Table 4. Estimated Petroleum and Natural Gas Resources in the 

Interior Columbia Basin 199 

Coal 200 

Mineral Development Interest Areas 200 

Undiscovered Mineral Resources 200 

Map 1: Areas favorable for mineral deposits where development 

activity is likely 201 

Cost Models and Projected Development 202 

Environmental Considerations 202 

Regulatory Setting 202 

Reclamation Costs 203 

Table 5. State Estimates of Mined Land Remediation Costs 204 

Table 6. Reclamation Cost Estimates 205 

Appendix 3-1 Implementation Framework 207 

Introduction 208 

The Nature of Decisions 208 

Nature of Planning on National Forest System and BLM- 

Administered Lands 208 

Nature of Decisions Expected in the ROD 209 

Relationship to Existing Plans, Policies and Decisions 210 

Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 210 

Management Priorities 211 

Implementation Process 212 

Introduction 212 

Time Frames for Implementation 212 

Interagency/Intergovernmental Coordination, Collaboration, and 

Accountability 213 

Consultation with Tribal Governments 214 

Public Involvement and Collaboration 214 

Linking Broad-scale Decisions and Information to Finer Levels 215 

Hierarchy of Analysis 215 

Management Activity Levels for Individual National Forests and 

BLM Resource Areas 218 

Interagency Cumulative Effects Analysis 219 

Snags and Downed Woody Debris 220 

Policies on Special Status Species 220 

Data Management and Technology Transfer 221 

A Framework for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 222 

Introduction 222 

Conceptual Framework of Monitoring 223 

General Approach of Monitoring Strategy 224 

Relationship of Monitoring to Other Activities 225 

Monitoring Components 227 

Types of Monitoring 227 

Defining Specific Evaluation Questions for the ICBEMP 228 



Table 1. Scale for Monitoring 234 

Developing Interagency and Intergovernmental Monitoring 234 

Evaluation 238 

Funding 239 

Challenges to Implementation 240 

Funding 240 

Monitoring 241 

Existing Laws 241 

Understanding Ecosystem Management 242 

Agency Accountability and Credibility 242 

Tribal Concerns 243 

Perceived Threat to Private Interests 243 

Ability to Implement Adaptive Management 243 

Reference List 243 

Appendix 3-2 Guidelines 245 

Implementing Ecosystem Management 246 

Sub-basin Reviews: Guidelines For Objective EM-03 246 

Ecosystem Management at the Watershed Scale: Guidelines For 

Objective EM-04 246 

Physical Environment 246 

Soil Productivity: Guidelines For Objectives PE-Ol through PE-04 246 

Air Quality: Guidelines For Objective PE-05 247 

Terrestrial Strategies 247 

Fire Disturbance Processes: Guidelines For Objectives TS-02 

andTS-03 247 

Noxious Weeds: Guidelines for Objectives TS-04 and TS-05 249 

Forested Lands 253 

Rangelands 259 

Aquatic /Riparian Strategies 263 

Guidelines Related to Objectives AQ-Ol, AQ-02, AQ-03, AQ-05, 

AQ-06, and AQ-O10 263 

Category 1 Sub-basins: Guidelines Related to Objective AQ-04 265 

Category 2 Sub-basins: Guidelines Related to Objective AQ-07 266 

Category 3 Sub-basins: Guidelines Related to Objective AQ-09 266 

Water Quality: Guidelines Related to Objective AQ-013 267 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species and Habitats 267 

Habitats for Federal Trust Responsibilities: Guidelines For 

Objective HA-Ol 267 

Viable Populations, and Listed Species Habitats and Recovery: 

Guidelines For Objectives HA-02 through HA-07 268 

Livestock/Wildlife Conflicts: Guidelines For Objective HA-07 269 

Human Uses and Values 270 

Collaboration: Guidelines Related to Objective HU-Ol 270 

Minimizing Shifts in Commercial Activity: Guidelines Related to 

Objective HU-05 271 

Economic Diversity: Guidelines Related to Objective HU-07 271 

Risks from Wildfire: Guidelines Related to Objective HU-09 273 

Recreation Guidelines Related to Objectives HU-O10 though HU-012 273 

Tribal Interests 278 



Government-to-Government Cooperation and Relations: 
Guidelines Related to Objectives TI-Ol 278 

Sense of Place: Guidelines For Objective TI-02 279 

Road Management 279 

Roads: Guidelines For Objectives RM-02 through RM-04 279 

Adaptive Management and Monitoring 280 

Adaptive Management: Guidelines Related to Objective AM-Ol 280 

Monitoring: Guidelines Related to Objective AM-02 281 

Appendix 3-3 Alternative Development Background 283 

Concepts for Alternatives 284 

Introduction 284 

Conclusions 284 

Recommendations 284 

Concepts 285 

Table 1. Summary of comments from March 1, 1995 mailing 286 

Goals for Alternatives 292 

Purpose 292 

How Goals Were Developed 292 

Final Goals 294 

Rationale for Alternative 5 296 

Mapping Process for Regional Priority Areas 296 

Table 2. Areas of Management Priority for Regional Efficiency 296 

Rationale for Alternative 7 303 

Mapping Process for Reserve Areas 303 

Table 3. Acres of Potential Vegetation Groups Within Reserves 304 

Rule Sets 305 

Development of Forest and Range Clusters, and Their Relationship 

to the Alternatives 305 

What the Science Team Did 305 

Developing Story Lines 306 

How Ecosystem Integrity Was Used in the Development of 

Alternatives 306 

Rule Sets for Management Activity Levels by Cluster and Alternative 307 

Table IF. Summary of Forest Clusters in the Project Area 308 

Table 1R. Summary of Range Clusters in the Project Area 309 

Table 2F Forest Cluster Activity Level Assumptions 310 

Table 2R. Range Cluster Activity Level Assumptions 311 

Table 3. Changing Road Density Classl 311 

Table 4F Activity Levels By Forest Cluster by Alternative 312 

Table 4R. Activity Levels by Range Cluster by Alternative 313 

Table 5. Alternative5 "Priority Management" Areas 314 

Table 6F. RULE SET - Process for combining Activity Levels 

into a "General Management Emphasis" for Forest Clusters 314 

Table 6R. RULE SET - Process for Combining Activity Levels into 

a "General Management Emphasis" for Range Clusters 315 

Table 7F. Overall Management Strategy by Alternative 315 

Table 7R. Overall Management Strategy by Alternative 315 

Table 8F. Management Activity Levels in Forest Clusters, in Acres 316 



Appendix 3-4 



Appendix 4-1 



Appendix 4-2 



Direction for RCAs and RMOs 319 

Introduction 320 

Overview of Aquatic and Riparian Strategies 320 

Alternative 1 320 

Alternative 2 320 

Alternatives 320 

Alternative 4 321 

Alternative 5 321 

Alternative 6 322 

Alternative? 322 

Direction for RCAs and RMOs 323 

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) 323 

Introduction 323 

Alternative! 324 

Alternative 2 324 

Alternatives 325 

Alternatives 4 and 6 325 

Table 1. Dominant Processes, Functions, and Disturbance 

Mechanisms for Perennial and Intermittent Streams 326 

Alternatives 330 

Alternative? 330 

Table 2. RCA Widths, Timber Priority Areas, Alternative 5 330 

Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) 331 

Introduction 331 

Procedure for RMO Application 331 

Alternative 1 332 

Alternatives 2 and 3 332 

Alternatives 4 and 6 332 

Table 3. RMO Values for Alternatives 2 and 3 333 

Table 4. RMO Values for Alternatives 4 and 6 334 

Table 5. Instream RMO values for Option B 335 

Alternative 5 336 

Alternative? 337 

Literature Cited 340 

Geographical Information System (GIS) Data and Databases 343 

Introduction 344 

Data and Analysis 344 

Documentation, Management, and Sharing of Data 345 

Summary 345 

Table 1. Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

(ICBEMP) Geographic Information System (GIS) Data 346 

Table 2. Databases and models obtained or created for ICBEMP 
(as of March 1, 1996) 351 

Rationale for Viability Compliance 355 

Introduction 356 

Management for Viable Populations 356 

Relationship between SIT Evaluation Outcomes and Viability 

Determinations 357 

Conclusions 358 



Terrestrial Species 358 

Aquatic Species 358 

Table 1. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for selected 

species of vascular plants for the Eastside Planning Area 359 

Table 2. Mean Viability Outcomes for Habitat and Populations of 

Vascular Plants for the Eastside Planning Area 363 

Table 3. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for 

amphibians and reptiles for the Eastside Planning Area 366 

Table 4. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of 

amphibians and reptiles for the Eastside Planning Area 368 

Table 5. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for habitat 

and species groups of waterbirds and shorebirds for the Eastside 

Planning Area 369 

Table 6. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and species groups 

of waterbirds and shorebirds for the Eastside Planning Area 372 

Table 7. Eastside EIS mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes 

for raptors and gamebirds for evaluation of alternatives 373 

Table 8. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of 

raptors and gamebirds for the Eastside Planning Area 377 

Table 9. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for woodpeckers, 

nuthatches, and swifts for the Eastside Planning Area 378 

Table 10. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of cavity 

nesting woodpeckers, nuthatches and swifts for the Eastside Planning 

Area 381 

Table 11. Eastside EIS mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for 

cuckoos, hummingbirds, and passerines for the Eastside Planning Area. . 382 
Table 12. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of cuckoos, 

hummingbirds, and passerines for the Eastside Planning Area 389 

Table 13. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for bats and 

small mammals for the Eastside Planning Area 391 

Table 14. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of bats 

and small mammals for the Eastside Planning Area 393 

Table 15. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes carnivores and 

ungulates for the Eastside Planning Area 394 

Table 16. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of 

mammalian carnivores and ungulates for the Eastside Planning Area 396 



Tables 



Appendix 1-3 



Appendix 2-1 



Appendix 2-2 



Appendix 2-3 



Appendix 3-1 
Appendix 3-3 



Public Involvement 

Table 1. Project Introduction Meetings from February 15 to 

March 10, 1994 101 

Table 2. Scoping Meetings from May 23 to June 2, 1994 102 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species 

Table 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Species in 

Oregon and Washington 146 

Table 2. Vascular Plant Species Used in the Evaluation of Alternatives 

for the Eastside Planning Area 147 

Table 3. Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Used in the Evaluation of 

Alternatives for the Eastside Planning Area 148 

Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: State and Forest 

Service Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area 154 

Rangeland Succession Models and Noxious Weeds 

Table A. Broad-scale cover types in the project area and their susceptibility to 
invasion by 25 weed species (24 legally declared noxious, plus cheatgrass). . 189 

Table B. Description of broad-scale cover types in the project area used in 
Table A to characterize the susceptibility of vegetation types to invasion 
by weed species 192 

Mineral Resources 

Table 1. Summary of Identified, Significant Mineral Deposits in 

the Project Area 196 

Table 2. Identified, Significant Mineral Deposits in the Project Area 197 

Table 3. Geothermal Resources with Potential for Development 198 

Oil and Gas 199 

Table 4. Estimated Petroleum and Natural Gas Resources in the Interior 

Columbia Basin 199 

Table 5. State Estimates of Mined Tand Remediation Costs 204 

Table 6. Reclamation Cost Estimates 205 

Implementation Framework 

Table 1. Scale for Monitoring 234 

Alternative Development Background 

Table 1. Summary of comments from March 1, 1995 mailing 286 

Table 2. Areas of Management Priority for Regional Efficiency 296 

Table 3. Acres of Potential Vegetation Groups Within Reserves 304 

Table IF. Summary of Forest Clusters in the Project Area 308 

Table 1R. Summary of Range Clusters in the Project Area 309 

Table 2F Forest Cluster Activity Level Assumptions 310 

Table 2R. Range Cluster Activity Level Assumptions 311 

Table 3. Changing Road Density Classl 311 

Table 4F Activity Levels By Forest Cluster by Alternative 312 

Table 4R. Activity Levels by Range Cluster by Alternative 313 



T. 1 » , i- 

4 j- JO IsUi/K 



Table 5. Alternative 5 "Priority Management" Areas 314 

Table 6F. RULE SET - Process for combining Activity Levels into a "General 

Management Emphasis" for Forest Clusters 314 

Table 6R. RULE SET - Process for Combining Activity Levels into a "General 

Management Emphasis" for Range Clusters 315 

Table 7E Overall Management Strategy by Alternative 315 

Table 7R. Overall Management Strategy by Alternative 315 

Table 8E Management Activity Levels in Forest Clusters, in Acres 316 

Appendix 3-4 Direction for RCAs and RMOs 

Table 1. Dominant Processes, Functions, and Disturbance Mechanisms for 

Perennial and Intermittent Streams 326 

Table 2. RCA Widths, Timber Priority Areas, Alternative 5 330 

Table 3. RMO Values for Alternatives 2 and 3 333 

Table 4. RMO Values for Alternatives 4 and 6 334 

Table 5. Instream RMO values for Option B 335 

Appendix 4-1 Geographical Information System (GIS) Data and Databases 

Table 1. Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
(ICBEMP) Geographic Information System (GIS) Data 346 

Table 2. Databases and models obtained or created for ICBEMP 
(as of March 1, 1996) 351 

Appendix 4-2 Rationale for Viability Compliance 

Table 1 . Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for selected 

species of vascular plants for the Eastside Planning Area 359 

Table 2. Mean Viability Outcomes for Habitat and Populations of 

Vascular Plants for the Eastside Planning Area 363 

Table 3. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for 

amphibians and reptiles for the Eastside Planning Area 366 

Table 4. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of 

amphibians and reptiles for the Eastside Planning Area 368 

Table 5. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for habitat and species 

groups of waterbirds and shorebirds for the Eastside Planning Area 369 

Table 6. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and species groups 

of waterbirds and shorebirds for the Eastside Planning Area 372 

Table 7. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for raptors and 

gamebirds for the Eastside Planning Area .-. 373 

Table 8. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of 

raptors and gamebirds for the Eastside Planning Area 377 

Table 9. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for woodpeckers, 

nuthatches, and swifts for the Eastside Planning Area 378 

Table 10. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of cavity 

nesting woodpeckers, nuthatches and swifts for the Eastside Planning 

Area 381 

Table 11. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for cuckoos, 

hummingbirds, and passerines for the Eastside Planning Area 382 

Table 12. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of cuckoos, 

hummingbirds, and passerines for the Eastside Planning Area 389 

Table 13. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for bats and 

small mammals for the Eastside Planning Area 391 



Table 14. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of bats 
and small mammals for the Eastside Planning Area 393 

Table 15. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes carnivores and 
ungulates for the Eastside Planning Area 394 

Table 16. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of 
mammalian carnivores and ungulates for the Eastside Planning Area 396 



Maps 



Appendix 1-2 American Indian Background Information 

Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon 

Mapl 21 

Coeur d'Alene Tribe of the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, Idaho 

Mapl 24 

Map 2 25 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington 

Mapl 29 

Map 2 30 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon 

Mapl 34 

Map 2 35 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 

Mapl 38 

Map 2 39 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation of the 
Yakama Reservation, Washington 

Mapl 43 

Map 2 44 

Fort Bidwell Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Bidwell 
Reservation, California 

Mapl 47 

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt 
Indian Reservation, Nevada 

Mapl 50 

Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation, Washington 

Mapl 53 

Map 2 53 

Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon 

Mapl 58 

Map 2 59 

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

Mapl 62 

Map 2 63 



SSSeHSssI:;:;::;:;. 



Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho 

Map 1 67 

Map 2 68 

Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation 
of California 

Mapl 73 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation 

Mapl 76 

The Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, Washington 

Mapl 79 

Map 2 80 

Appendix 2-1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Species 

Map 1. Distribution of Borax Lake Chub and Hutton Tui Chub 173 

Map 2. Distribution of Foskett Speckled Dace and Shortnose Sucker 174 

Map 3. Distribution of Lost River Sucker and Warner Sucker 175 

Map 4. Distribution of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 176 

Map 5. Snake River Salmon High Priority Watersheds 177 

Map 6. Critical Habitat for Snake River Spring, Summer, and Fall 

Chinook Salmon and Snake River Sockeye Salmon** 178 

Map 7. Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone - North Cascades 178 

Map 8. Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones Present grizzly bear ecosystems in the 

conterminous 48 States, 1990 180 



Appendix 1 -1 

Supporting 

Science, Laws, and 

Land Use Plans 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix A) 




This Appendix contains 
the following items: 

• Introduction 

• Science 

• Laws 

• Land Use Plans 



■■...■'■ ' :v-:; : "■;■:■*■; 



0m)tmi/m:[ i 8 3 :S3 m: : : ; : : ! -: : : : : / «/"S f aS!;««! ''WBl'B' 



Introduction 



There is a body of scientific literature especially relevant to the development of this Draft EIS. A 
number of major studies were conducted that either preceded or were done apart from the Interior 
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) but were instrumental in laying the 
foundation for the Project. Another set of reports were developed during the course of the Project 
by the ICBEMP Science Integration Team (SIT) explicitly to support the planning effort. A list and 
description of these works follow. There are also a number of laws that apply to land management 
and decision-making on agency lands in the project area. A list of these is provided. Finally, land 
management plans have been developed for the Forest Service and BLM administrative units 
encompassed by the project area. These plans provide information important to development of 
this Draft EIS and may eventually be revised as a result of this planning effort. A list of those 
plans in the Eastside planning area is provided. For a list of plans in the Upper Columbia River 
Basin (UCRB) planning area, see Appendix A in the UCRB Draft EIS. For a complete list of 
literature cited in this Draft EIS, please refer to the References List following Chapter 5 of this DEIS. 



Science 

Major Studies of Eastside Ecosystems 
and Management 

♦ Spring 1993. Richard Everett, Paul Hessburg, Mark Jensen and Bernard Bormann completed 
an Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment, commissioned by the U.S. Congress, 
which documented changes in eastside ecosystems and proposed an initial process for 
developing landscape prescriptions for management. This report, published in 1994 (Everett et 
al. 1994), focused largely on forest ecosystem health in six river basins. 

♦ September 1993. The Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel released an executive 
summary of the congressionally commissioned Interim Protection for Late-Successional 
Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds for National Forests East of the Cascade Crest in 
Oregon and Washington. The panel's mandate was to broadly review the status of all eastside 
forests and their associated resources. The complete report was published in 1994 (Henjum et 
al. 1994). 

♦ November 1993. A scientific workshop, Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland 
West, was convened in Sun Valley, Idaho to assess the current state of scientific knowledge 
about the health of forests in the Inland West. The goal was for 35 participating scientists and 
managers to produce a current, accurate, credible synthesis of information, from across 
disciplines, about forest ecosystem health. The full publication (Sampson and Adams 1994) 
contains an overview paper, five synthesis papers, and 16 individual scientific papers. 

♦ December 1993. Jay O'Laughlin, Director of the Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy 
Analysis Group, and others published Report No. 1 1: Forest Health Conditions in Idaho. 
The report addresses how sustaining healthy forest ecosystems might proceed in Idaho. 

♦ March 1994. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was issued for the Implementation of 
Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern 
Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California, commonly known as PACFISH 
(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994). The EA calls for the 
Forest Service and the BLM to implement interim direction for habitat management to conserve 
Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout throughout their range in Oregon, 
Washington, Idaho, and California. The EA also said that this- interim direction is to be 



followed by longer-term management direction to address anadromous fish habitat 
conservation in these states. The decision record is expected to be signed early in 1995. 

+ May 1994. A draft environmental impact statement on Rangeland Reform was released, 
proposing changes in grazing regulations for all BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. 
The provisions of this proposed rule are necessary to ensure proper administration of livestock 
grazing on public rangelands and bring about reform in rangeland management for the 
improvement, protection, and proper function of rangeland ecosystems. The Final EIS was 
issued in December 1994 (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). 

♦ October 1 994. The Western Forest Health Initiative report was released (USDA Forest 
Service 1994). The team, established by Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas, was 
chartered to identify Forest Service priority activities to restore western forested ecosystems 
health. The report identifies project priorities over the next 24 months for forest health, 
including reduction of catastrophic changes in key ecosystem structure, composition, and 
processes; restoration of critical ecosystem processes; and restoration of stressed sites. 

Science Integration Team (SIT) Reports 

Three major products were generated by the Science Integration Team: A Framework for 
Ecosystem Management; A Scientific Assessment of the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of 
the Klamath and Great Basins (includes five staff area reports plus an integrated compilation); and 
an Evaluation of EIS Alternatives. A number of other reports, developed both by the SIT and by 
private contractors, contributed to these documents. The SIT was composed of federal employees 
from the Forest Service, BLM, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines. It was organized into five teams, specializing in Landscape 
Ecology, Terrestrial Ecology, Aquatics, Economics, and Social Science. The SIT was supported by a 
staff of Geographic Information System (GIS) specialists. 

Scientific Framework 

The Framework Jot Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the 
Klamath and Great Basins (Haynes et al. 1996) describes the principles and processes applicable 
for managing ecosystems in the project area at various geographic scales. The Framework also 
includes a discussion of how these principles and goals might be used to implement ecosystem 
management within a process of managing risks (with risks defined as activities or events that 
relate to the likelihood of not reaching desired goals). Focusing on lands administered by the 
Forest Service or BLM, the Framework provides broad concepts and analytical processes 
recommended for ecosystem analysis, planning, management, and monitoring. The EIS process 
was consistent with the principles in the Framework. 

Scientific Assessment 

The ICBEMP scientific assessment resulted in two major documents. An Assessment of Ecosystem 
Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Quigley 
and Arbelbide 1996b) presents information gathered and brought forward as Staff Area Reports by 
five functional groups ~ Landscape Dynamics, Terrestrial Ecology , Aquatics, Social, and 
Economics ~ through an examination of historical and current conditions and trends. An 
Integrated Scientific Assessmentfor Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and 
Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Quigley et al. 1996a) integrates the information identified 
in the staff area reports, and uses integrity indices to examine the extent of ecological risk and 
departure from historical and potential vegetation conditions. It also discusses probable outcomes 
of management under various possible futures. Both documents together are referred to as the 
Assessment or Scientific Assessment. 



The Scientific Assessment drew on information from all lands within the project area, not just 
Forest Service- or BLM-administered lands. Understanding ecosystem components, structures, 
processes, and functions that operate at multiple geographic and temporal extents and providing 
context for decisions required that all lands be included in the Assessment. Because of the broad 
level of data resolution used in the Assessment and the large geographic extent, it relied primarily 
on remote sensing or readily available information from third party sources. An effort was made to 
use as much as possible of the existing information concerning the past and present condition of 
the project area. To the extent feasible, the SIT relied on existing simulation models to project 
future conditions of the project area. Where existing models were not available, new models were 
constructed and simulations made to project future conditions or interpretations, and inferences 
were made from the information available and model results. 

Evaluation of Alternatives 

The Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration Team (Quigley et al. 1997) analyzes the 
effects of implementing each alternative management strategy. Outcomes of each alternative were 
evaluated relative to maintaining and/or restoring forest and rangeland health and productivity; 
and to maintaining economic, social, and cultural systems (including tribal trust responsibilities). 
The Evaluation provides an estimate of likely outcomes and cumulative effects from the alternatives 
across the entire project area. 



^f^^M^^^MS^ 



Laws 



The following statutes and executive orders (as amended) constitute the major legal guidance for 
planning and management of lands administered by BLM and Forest Service. This list is not all 
inclusive but does represent the primary legal guidance considered in preparation of this Draft EIS. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 42 USC 1996 

Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 , as amended 7 USC 426-426b 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 16 USC 470aa 

Bald Eagle Protection Act 1 6 USC 668 

Clean Air Act 42 USC 740 1 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 42 USC 9601 

Endangered Species Act of 1 973 16 USC 1 53 1 

Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 42 USC 4371 
Executive Order 1 1514, Protection and enhancement of Environmental Quality, 1970 

Executive Order 1 1644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands, 1972 
Executive Order 1 1988, Floodplain Management. 1977 
Executive Order 1 1989, Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands. 1977 
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 1977 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 43 USC 1701 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act 33 USC 1 25 1 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 1 6 USC 66 1 
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended 

Geothermal Energy Act of 1980 30 USC 1 501 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 30 USC 1001 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 16 USC 4601-4 

Materials Act of 1947 30 USC 801 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 1 6 USC 7 1 5 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 USC 703 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (Mineral Lands Leasing Act) 30 USC 181 

Mining Act of 1872 30 USC 26 

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1 970 30 USC 2 1 a 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 42 USC 4321 
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

National Historic Preservation Act 16 USC 470 

National Trail Systems Act 16 USC 1241 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act 43 USC 869 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 42 USC 6901 

Safe Drinking Water Act 42 USC 300f 

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 16 USC 2001 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 30 USC 1201 et seq. 

Taylor Grazing Act 43 USC 3 1 5 

Wilderness Act of 1 964 1 6 USC 1 1 3 1 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 16 USC 1271 



™S' sRi™*;™ 



Land Use Plans 



Forest Service and BLM Land Use Plans 



State/Region 



BLM/Oregon and 
Washington 



Forest Service/Pacific 
Northwest Region 



BLM District or 
National Forest 



Plan Name 



Date Completed 



Prineville District 
Prineville District 
Lakeview District 
Lakeview District 
Lakeview District 
Lakeview District 
Burns District 
Burns District 
Burns District 
Vale District 
Vale District 
Vale District 
Spokane District 

Ochoco NF Crooked 

River National Grasslands 
Winema NF 
Mount Hood NF 
Malheur NF 
Deschutes NF 
Deschutes NF 
Fremont NF 
Wallowa -Whitman 
Wallowa -Whitman 
Columbia River Gorge NSA 
Umatilla NF 
Okanogan NF 
Gifford Pinchot NF 
Colville NF 
Wenatchee NF 



Abbreviations used in this table: 

MFP = Management Framework Plan 

NF = National Forest 

NVM = National Volcanic Monument 

NRA = National Recreation Area 

NSA = National Scenic Area 

RMP = Resource Management Plan 



Two Rivers RMP 

Brothers/LaPine RMP 

Warner Lakes MFP 

Upper Klamath Basin RMP 

Klamath Falls RMP 

High Desert MFP 

John Day RMP 

Three Rivers RMP 

Andrews MFP 

Baker RMP 

Northern Malheur MFP 

Southern Malheur MFP 

Spokane RMP 

Ochoco Forest Plan 

Winema Forest Plan 
Mount Hood Forest Plan 
Malheur Forest Plan 
Deschutes Forest Plan 
Newberry NVM Plan 
Fremont Forest Plan 
Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan 
Hell's Canyon NRA Plan 
Columbia River Gorge NSA Plan 
Umatilla Forest Plan 
Okanogan Forest Plan 
Gifford Pinchot Forest Plan 
Colville Forest Plan 
Wenatchee Forest Plan 



June 6, 1986 

1989 

1982 

December 1995 

May 22, 1995 

1982 

August 28, 1985 

1992 

1982 

July 12, 1989 

1982 

1982 

December 1992 

August 1, 1989 

September 19, 1990 
October 17, 1990 
May 25, 1990 
August 27, 1990 
August 1, 1994 
May 12, 1989 
April 23, 1990 
1984 

February 1992 
June 11, 1990 
December 29, 1989 
June 1, 1990 
December 29. 1988 
March 2. 1990 



:?Pii!i 



Appendix 1-2 

American Indian 
Background 
Information 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix C) 




Contents 

Introduction 8 

General Information Sheets for Affected Tribes in the Eastside 

Planning Area 8 

Federal Court Cases with Applications for Multiple Tribes 15 

Burns Paiute Tribe 19 

Coeur d'Alene Tribe 22 

Coluille Indian Reservation Tribes 26 

Umatilla Reservation Tribes 31 

Warm Springs Reservation Tribes 36 

Yakama Indian Nation 40 

Fort Bidwell Indian Community 45 

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes 48 

Kalispel Indian Community 51 

Klamath Indian Tribe 55 

KootenaiTribe 60 

Nez Perce Tribe 64 

Pit River Tribe 69 

Quartz Valley Indian Community 71 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 74 

Spokane Tribe 77 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe 81 

Chronology of Legal Status of American Indian Tribes 82 

Evaluating Habitat, Harvestability, and Meeting American Indian 

Needs 92 

Ethno-Habitats 94 



"X. 



Introduction 



This appendix contains information about the American Indian Tribes that have reservations, 
ceded lands, or areas of interest within or bordering the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project (ICBEMP), Eastside Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) planning area. 
Seventeen tribes have worked closely with the Eastside EIS Team providing information about the 
tribes and their concerns. 

This appendix is presented in four sections: General Information Sheets: Chronology of Legal 
Status of American Indian Tribes: Evaluating Habitat, Harvestability, and Meeting American Indian 
Needs: and Ethno-habitats. These four sections will give an overall picture of the concerns of the 
American Indians and how the ICBEMP is striving to incorporate their concerns into ecosystem 
management of the project area. 

General Information Sheets for 
Affected Tribes in the Eastside 
Planning Area 

The United States Government has a unique relationship with federally recognized American 
Indian tribes. As federal agencies undertake activities that may affect tribes' rights, property 
interests or trust resources, care should be taken to implement agency policies, programs and 
projects in a knowledgeable and sensitive manner respectful of tribes' sovereignty and needs. 

The attached general information sheets briefly describe each of the 1 7 identified affected federally 
recognized tribes of the Eastside EIS planning area. Information is presented that may be helpful 
to agency managers in developing an understanding of tribes, federal trust responsibilities, and 
their organizational structures and a tool to maintain information useful in agency-tribe 
relationships. This introduction provides background information and an explanation for each 
subsection in the general information sheets. NOTE: Although both tribes and agency legal 
council were provided opportunities to review these EIS appendix materials, the information 
presented does not represent either tribal or federal government views, but rather the ICBEMP's 
best understanding of affected tribes. 

Tribes and Bands 

The names of Tribes and Bands in this section were taken from ratified treaties and signed 
executive order documents, which formed the basis for a tribe's formal federal recognition. In a few 
instances, additional names preferred by a tribe to identify a band, or tribal subdivision are also 
noted. Many of the names in this section are anglicized versions of native terms, historical 
creations, or an historic version of a another band's name for the group - usually a neighboring 
band/tribe. There are other native names and member bands, which a tribe may recognize. 

Basis for Legal Status 

The basis of a tribe's legal status rests within context of U.S. Constitutional provisions for federal 
government's powers for treaty making with other sovereign nations, and American Indian tribes 
inherent sovereignty. The treaty making period between the U.S. Government and American 
Indian tribes ended in 1871. The federal government thereafter relied upon Agreements (signed by 
both houses) to legally acquire Indian lands, allow tribes to cede lands, establish reservations, 
provide federal recognition of tribes and remove Indian peoples to reservations or rancherias. 



■■...: . . ."■:■ ■■. ■ ■■.■.■.:'::::.■,■ 

■ ■ ■. ■ ' ■■:.■■■■ 



A tribe's legal status is also derived through Agreements with the U.S. government; congressional 
and executive branch recognition of the tribe; and federal court interpretations of Indian law and 
legal documents, e.g. treaties, executive orders, agreements, federal statutes and other government 
to government agreements. Tribes also have constitutions and by-laws, which formalize their 
governmental organization and state their relationship with the US government. 

Additional sources of legal recognition may be found in federal statutes and congressional Acts, 
which often do not distinguish between federally and non-federally recognized tribes and bands. 
Examples of the latter include American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Executive Order on 
Environmental Justice, Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act, National 
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, and Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act. Also, some States have special agreement documents and established government 
to government relations recognizing a tribc(s)/band, and their interests and needs. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

All tribes have off-reservation interests in public lands and many retain pre-existing rights reserved 
through treaty or executive order language. Tribal interests in federal lands may be related to 
traditional/cultural uses: water-land well being, or the socio-economic needs of tribes. These 
interests as it affects both on and off-reservation tribal rights, interests, trust resources. 

The legal basis of these tribal interests and rights are founded in the inherent sovereignty of tribes; 
continuing aboriginal rights; pre-existing rights reserved in treaties, executive orders; agreements 
(passed by both houses of the federal government); and federal statues. Some of these in turn have 
been interpreted through federal court decisions. Where appropriate, examples of a tribe's reserved 
rights are provided as stated in their treaty or executive order. Congressional direction for tribal 
socio-economic self-sufficiency and socio well-being on their reservations, and the federal 
government's goal of tribal self-determination provide further basis for tribal interests and rights 
that lie off Indian lands. 

Additional sources of legal rights may be found in special agreements and recognition provided by 
states over their long history of relationships with tribes. 

Examples of tribal interests in federal agency lands includes: traditional cultural practices, ethno- 
habitats; various resources; ecosystem health; communally valued sacred and legendary places; 
and socio-economic opportunities such as livestock grazing. Tribal rights include treaty reserved 
rights to fish, hunt, gather, trap, and graze livestock and implied rights of water quality/quantity, 
access to resources and an environmental right including available healthy and sustainable 
habitats. Other rights include protection of reservation property, trust resources, air quality, water 
quality/quantity and social well being. 

Relevant Federal Court Decisions 

Although there are numerous federal court decisions involving tribal interests and rights, only 
those federal court cases where a tribe was a named part to the case are listed in this section. The 
many other cases, which may have direct or indirect bearing on a given tribe are not listed as they 
are too numerous for the allotted space. However, an example set of federal court cases that have 
regional importance are attached to this introduction sheet. 

State court cases have been noted where they have not been taken to a federal court to address a 
like off-reservation tribal interest or right. 

Federal agencies have trust obligations to address effects to tribal interest, rights and property on 
reservations and are required to disclose known effects through the NEPA process. Some standard 
federal court cases are cited that discussed federal agency trust responsibilities and obligations to 
tribes concerning water quality/quantity, air quality, or property of Indian reservations as well as 
social, economic and cultural interests/rights. 






itiaaaaimffiMiaaii 



Amwmx 1-2: Ahekicaw Imu-uv B,\ckgrovnd iNPOsatAnon 



Land Base 



Pre-treaty land base figures are based on acreage of the homelands of tribes and/or lands ceded by 
tribes to the US government as provided either by tribes or available literature. Reservations have 
invariably experienced changes in their size since they were first established so the original reservation 
acreage, a sketch of some causes of size changes and the current reservation acreage is provided. 

Trust land refers to tribal land held in trust for the tribe by the federal government, usually 
through the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Fee, or fee simple land refers 
to land within reservation boundaries not federally owned, but owned by the tribe, or individuals 
(tribal or non-tribal members). Allotted land, allotted to tribal members through the 1897 Indian 
Allotment Act until the Indian 1934 Reorganization Act, may be individually owned or land held in 
trust located either within or outside a reservation. The ownership status of Indian allotments and 
fee lands are usually not affected when reservations have been abolished by the US government. 
Indian country refers to all land within an Indian reservation except for non-Indian communities. 
Trust lands, restricted Indian allotments and federally/tribal dependant Indian communities 
outside a reservation are also considered Indian country. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Tribal headquarters are typically both the seat of tribal governments and the location of tribal 
administration. Bureau of Indian Affairs field offices have often been located in or nearby tribal 
headquarters. Most tribal government offices in more than one buildings, some in building 
complexes and for large tribal organizations they may be spread across reservations and/or in 
more than one community. However, most federal agency contacts will be directed to a tribe's 
primary government office - tribal headquarters. Though tribal office's are typically open 
weekdays, it is generally easiest to contact tribal staff Monday through Thursday. 

Tribal Population 

Estimates of tribal populations from the mid- 1800s are typically imprecise owing to the nature of 
how population numbers were compiled for peoples that actively travelled, and census takers' 
imperfect understanding of band organizations. More recent population figures are based on tribal 
enrollment numbers that include both reservation and off-reservation residents. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Each federally recognized tribe has member bands that anthropologists have assigned to one of five 
Cultural Areas encompassed by the ICBEMP project area. These Culture Areas include the Californian, 
northern Great Basin, and Plateau. The Blackfeet Tribe is culturally affiliated with the Plains Culture 
Area. The persistence of fundamental aspects of tribal cultures are typically strongly influenced by both 
the culture history of a tribe(s) and the broad cultural patterns of these Culture Areas. 

Religions 

Most tribes continue to practice their communally shared traditional religious and spiritual belief 
systems, religions that are blend of traditional and Christian religious systems, and Christianity. 
Native religious systems and spiritual/healing practices originating from areas outside of the 
ICBEMP project area are also present and respected by tribes. 

Languages 

All affected tribes speak English as their primary language. However, native languages and 
dialects are still spoken and many tribes have or are currently developing native language 






Gf.xkhai. IivroKMArnw Sheets 



programs to ensure native language survival and use. Some tribes continue to employ interpreters 
to facilitate communications in tribal business meetings. 

Governance 

This section identifies what sort of tribal organization and the legal basis for its legal structure. 
For example, whether a tribe opted for the provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act following its 
passage is noted. Also, if a tribe has opted for a self-governance form of organization, or varying 
forms of self-determination. The latter typically implies one of three trends: (1) Integration of BIA 
staff, (2) Decreased reliance on BIA support, or (3) Continuance of an existing BIA role in tribal 
governance. A brief description of tribal government structure is identified including their kind of 
governing body. The tribe's constitution and by-laws, tribal ordinances and codes, and tribal plans 
are referenced as appropriate. Operative tribal ordinances and resolutions have historically been 
subject to Secretary of Interior review and approval. 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

Historically area tribes and bands were economically inter-dependant and were sustained by 
subsistence economies that were often been described in legal documents in terms of primary 
activities, such as fishing, gathering, hunting, trapping and animal husbandry. Early historic 
Indian economies were interrelated with the social, political and religious components of their 
cultures. These economies were also influenced by non-traditional material goods, (guns, kitchen 
ware etc.), and economic practices (agriculture, fur trading industry). 

Tribal Enterprises 

Tribal owned and/or operated enterprises provide socio-economic benefits to tribal membership, 
tribal interests and often support to tribal government infrastructure. These enterprises are varied 
and often reflect tribal values and interests. Many tribal businesses are dependant on the 
opportunities of their locations, resources, and interrelationships with States, non-tribal 
communities and tourism. 

Most are not directly dependant on traditional non-Indian uses of federal lands such as timber 
harvest, recreation and livestock grazing. However, some tribes like the Northern Paiute tribes 
are increasingly looking toward livestock grazing of federal lands as a means to support tribal 
socio-economic well being and economic diversification. Indirect effects of federal land 
management on tribal enterprises may involve tribal commercial fishing, fisheries, reservation 
timber industries and tourism. 

Tribal Private Sector 

Tribal member owned enterprises often range in their variety and are typically less dependant on 
federal land activities than tribal enterprises. Exceptions are in the areas of commercial and 
subsistence fishing, gathering and hunting and grazing. 

Education Institutions 

Many tribes have or are developing tribal educational systems ranging from preschools to colleges, 
and work with neighboring non-Indian educational institutions and more distant universities 
where Indian youth attend. In addition to standard forms of education, some tribes have native 
language, cultural, and art institutions or programs. Many tribes have educational materials 
describing their cultural, history, tribal rights/interests and/or current activities, which may be 
made available to federal managers and the public. 



MusetLTn 

Tribal museums, cultural institutes/centers, and cultural interpretative facilities are increasingly 
being established on or near tribal lands. These are Native American cultural facilities/centers, 
which provide tribal cultural perspectives and educational opportunities for both tribal members 
and the public. Some tribes such as the Yakama Indian Nation have sophisticated archival facilities. 

Tribal Newspaper 

Of the 22 affected ICBEMP tribes, 15 tribes carry a regularly distributed tribal newspaper, or 
newsletter available to all interested subscribers. A few papers are produced at no cost to 
subscribers. These papers provide tribal news, media access, local and regional current affairs/ 
events, Indian country issues, and special interest items. Information on federal and State 
agencies' actions, activities and meetings are often reported. 

Tribal Department/Programs 

Tribal programs with off-reservation involvement are listed to help identify the range of tribal 
interests in resources and land as well as tribal program activities and capabilities. All but the 
smallest tribal organizations have tribal departments and programs, which are staffed with 
technical expertise from a wide range of health, social, natural resource and administrative 
disciplines. These may or may not work closely with counterpart Bureau of Indian Affairs office 
staff depending on tribal government organizational decisions. Those tribes that have chosen a 
form of self-governance have taken over most past BIA field office departments and roles. Tribes 
like the Colville have chosen to cooperatively mix responsibilities between BIA and tribal staff. Still 
other tribes are currently reviewing how they would prefer to work with local BIA offices. 

Tribal Fisheries (Ethno-habitats) 

Most affected tribes place an importance on protection and restoration of their socially and 
traditionally significant habitat places. Primary aquatic habitats for tribal fishing are best known 
and reported here for each tribe. All culturally significant fish bearing capable streams, rivers and 
lakes found within a tribe's area of interest (aboriginal homelands, ceded lands included) should be 
considered probable locations of a tribe's fisheries and/or fisheiy interests. This includes, legally 
recognized tribal usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations on and off-reservations for 
those tribes with Steven's Treaties. 

This section emphasizes tribal fisheries with continuing social, economic and/or cultural 
significance to tribes. However, tribal hunting and gathering areas/ethno-habitats, though less 
well known, are mentioned for some tribes where well recognized examples exist. 

Subsistence in subsistence areas/ranges refer to more than foods for physical nutrition, but both 
lands and resources important for socio-cultural sustenance and maintenance of tribal community 
well being. 

Tribal Contact 

The ICBEMP's primaiy tribal contact! s), usually an appointed federal agency liaison, or available 
leadership from smaller tribal organizations, are listed along with their phone and fax numbers. 
Though agency- tribal relations may lean on such liaison contacts, they should not be considered 
the sole source for technical or policy information and can not be used for purposes of project 
consultation unless the tribal government agrees to such an arrangement. 



Agency Contact 

The ICBEMP Bureau of Indian Affairs contact, usually the local BIA office superintendent, and 
their address, phone number, and fax number is provided. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Soclo-calturai. Each tribe and associated communities have social and cultural activities held 
annually as well as community and extended family events. The later, such as weddings, funerals, 
naming, and giveaways, may occur at any time of the year. Taken together these activities help 
provide an understanding of tribal social life and values. Both types of tribal activities could affect 
meeting schedules in addition to tribal business schedules depending on employee roles in 
organizing or participation. 

Government: Each tribe has its own electoral system or variation of a type found among other 
tribes. The times of tribal government elections for tribal and general council positions and how 
they are performed differ by tribe, owing to differences between tribal constitutions and/or 
traditional laws. For example some tribes elect their "council" as a whole, while others in parts 
over a period of years. Tribal elections may occur annually, or periodically every certain number of 
years. Elections may be by ballot or through a traditional open voting method. Tribal council 
meetings may be open to tribal membership on a selective basis or frequent basis. How often a 
tribal or general council meets to conduct business also varies by tribe. Understanding how a tribe 
generally schedules its time for tribal business may help provide a logistical understanding to 
facilitate agency- tribal consultation, identify when changes might occur in tribal governing 
structures and develop a fuller understanding of a tribal government. 

Tribal Governing Bodies 

The governing body of a tribe may have one of the following titles: Tribal Council, Business Council, 
Executive Committee, or Board of Trustees. A tribe's governing body (Councils are elected from the 
general council membership, which consist of enrolled tribal members 18 years of age or older. 
These councils may be elected by reservation districts, or in other tribes by members at large. A 
typical tribal governing body will have selected officials (sometimes elected by Council vote) that 
function as a Chair, Vice-Chair; Secretary, Treasurer; and in some cases as an assistant secretary 
and sergeant at arms. A chairman or these selected officials sometimes serve to handle specific 
council decisions, although their roles are often specific to collective Council functions. 

Each tribe has a somewhat different tribal government structure dependant on its legal and 
organization history. The terms and available positions elected officials hold vary by tribe in both 
their tribal council and general council seats and committees membership. All tribes have the first 
two categories of governmental groups, however, not all function with committees. How tribal 
governments are organized are usually described in their constitution and by-law documents. The 
Yakama Nation is an exception in that it never adopted a constitutional from of government preferring 
to operate under traditional laws and through ordinances, and general or tribal council resolutions. 

Most tribal governments affected by the ICBEMP operate with either a Tribal Council (12 tribes), or 
a Business Council (7 tribes). However, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation has a 
Board of Trustees, and the Klamath Tribes and Nez Perce Nations have Executive Committees. 

General Council 

Most tribes have a general council, which is comprised of all enrolled members. Typically only 
members 18 years of age or older are entitled to voting rights and certain other privileges of tribal 
citizenship. General councils typically have elected officials to address tribal business concerns 






including a Chair; Vice-Chair; Secretary; some tribes also have one or more Interpreters. These 
positions may be filled by the same officials as on the tribal council in some tribes. The 
relationship between the General Councils and Tribal/Business type Councils is variable, although 
in most tribes the General Council retains authority to restrict, or amend Tribal Council actions 
and decisions. Certain tribal business issues may be required to be brought before the general 
council for review and direction prior to a tribal government decision. General Council meetings 
may be held through the year to address tribal business at regularly scheduled times or through 
special meetings. General councils having the authority to elect tribal council members may also choose 
to express direction to a Council through an electorial avenue either at regular or early elections. 

For those tribes that do not have a general council, tribal membership participate as a rules in the 
regular Tribal/Business Council meetings. Examples of tribes in this category include the 
following: Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation; Shoshone- 
Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation; Pit River Tribe; and the Quarts Valley Indian 
Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation, 

Committees, Commissions, and Boards 

Tribes typically develop and implement policies through the use of a variety of committees, 
commissions Boards and/or Task Forces. Those listed in this section of the general information 
sheet provide both an indication of the breadth of issues tribes routinely address, and those that 
federal land managing agencies may necessarily work with directly. Each tribe may use these 
organizational groups in different ways and empower them with different kinds of responsibilities 
and degrees of authority. 

Agencies need to become aware to what degree these groups can speak for tribal rights and 
interests and what their relationship is with both tribal councils and departments/programs. 
Relationships with these tribal groups could become an integral way an agency unit and a tribe 
decides to conduct informal dialogue, but it can not be mistaken as consultation between an 
agency and tribe unless the tribal government agrees. 

Tribal Area of Interest Map 

For those tribes whose tribal headquarters within the project area, a map showing its aboriginal 
area of interest is shown in context with ICBEMP and State line boundaries. These interest area 
indicate the fundamental geographic range of interest for any particular group, i.e. The approximate 
sum of such interest areas a tribal government represents for its member bands and people. 

Individual tribal governments express their interest and concerns for tribal traditional uses, 
landscapes and resources, and needs of its communities within in the context of their own area of 
interest. A tribe's homeland is typically located near the center of its interest area and is where 
primary tribal use of resources and land occurs. Shared resource use areas (cross-utilization 
areas) are usually near interest areas' peripheries and contribute to why tribal interest areas often 
overlap one another. 

The boundaries of interest areas are necessarily vague and can only be approximated to encompass 
expansive areas of tribal interests and influences. Tribal interests areas are not expressly or 
legal defined, but open to ongoing interpretation and discussion on a project -by-project basis. 

Those maps displayed in the tribal appendix represent areas used in the ICBEMP Scientific Assessment 
and do not reflect corrections provided by either the Coeur d'Alene or Kootenai of Idaho tribes. 

Interest areas have sometimes called a tribe's aboriginal territory, subsistence range, traditional 
use area, zone of influence. The term usual and accustomed area by contrast refers to Steven's 
treaty language rights and interests, which are themselves smaller in area than Interest Areas, but 
may help define the spatial extend of a tribes Interest Area. 



Tribal Ceded, Aboriginal Lands, or Court of Claims Maps 

For those tribes with treaties either those aboriginal territories ceded to the US government, or the 
aboriginal territories themselves are shown on maps based upon the legal descriptions provided in 
treaty language, (Portland Area Jurisdiction, Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian 
Treaty Boundaries Map, 1986.) Only ceded and aboriginal lands located within the boundaries of 
the project area are shown on the General Information Sheet maps. The Shoshone tribe as found 
on the Fort Hall, Northwest band Shoshone and Wind River reservations has aboriginal territory, 
which extends outside the project's boundary given the Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni 
and Bannock, 1868. 

Ceded boundaries and reservation boundaries are precisely defined in United States legal 
documents. Two types of negotiated land areas are recognized: (1) Ceded land area, which pertain 
only to those tribes that ceded lands to the US government by treaty or agreement: and (2) 
Exclusive use land areas, which boundaries were established through a modern land claims 
process. Ceded territory boundaries were typically established by U.S. treaty negotiators, often 
prior to the actual treaty council meetings. Exclusive use area boundaries are based on arguments 
provided to the Federal Claims Commission, which tended to focus on "exclusive use" core areas, 
and exclude the full area of a tribe's subsistence range. 

These two types of areas are normally geographically large, but usually much smaller than interest 
areas. Both are constructs developed as a result of U.S. Indian policy (treaties and the Indian 
Claims Commission Act) and are legally meaningful largely to address tribes' right and title to land. 
Ceded land may have importance where legal questions pertain, but as a spatial unit may lack 
traditional significance to Indian peoples. For example, as Indian case law has shown, usual and 
accustomed fishing sites and other traditional use locations are defined within interest areas, not 
ceded territories or land claims boundaries. 

Ceded boundaries, where they exist, tend to establish a modern-day version of exclusive use areas, 
serving to identify supremacy of a tribe's interests over other tribes in certain areas. They also 
form convenient administrative boundaries for tribal land use planning efforts and, in some cases, 
are viewed by tribal staff as defining the tribe's interest area. 

Federal Court Cases with 
Applications for Multiple Tribes 

This is a summary of federal court cases relevant to the off-reservation interest and rights of 
affected tribes not provided in the tribal general information sheets, (see section on Relevant 
Federal Court Decisions). These Federal cases were selected on the basis of their relevance to land, 
water, resources, cultural uses and federal agency land management with an emphasis on off- 
reservation case implications. This listing is intended to be an initial reference source for a wide 
range of tribal rights, interests and issues as interpreted in the federal court system. (See tribal 
Chronology for other legal status references.) 






Affected ICBEMP Tribes Named as a Party to 
Federal Court Case 

Supreme Court Decisions 

United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905) 

SeufertBros. Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 194(1919) 

Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Indian Nation. 249 U.S. 194(1919) 

Shoshone Tribes v. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (1937 

United States v. Klamath & Modoc Tribes, 304 US 119 (1 938) 

United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 1 1 1 (1938) 

Klamath v. Modoc Tribes, 304 U.S. 1 19 (1938) 

Tulee v. State of Washington, 315 U.S. 680 (1942) 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 325 U.S. 849 (1945). recall and amend 

mandate denied. 
Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975) 

Washington v. Washington State Comm. Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658 (1979). 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Tribes, 473 U.S. 753 (1 985) 

Federal Court Seconds 

Whitefoot v. United States 293 F.2d. 658 (Ct. CI. 1961), cert, denied, 369 U.S. 818 (1962) 
Maison v. Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Reservation, 314F.2d 169 (9th Cir.), Cert, denied. 

375 U.S. 829(1963) 
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation v. United States, 1 77 Ct. CI. 1 84 (1 966) 
Confederated Salish& Kootenai Tribes v. United States. 181 Ct. CI. 739(1967) 
Settler v. Yakama Tribal Court, 419F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1 969), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 903 (1 970) 
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Calloway, Civil No. 72-211, (Dist. of Oregon 1973) 
Settler v. Lameer, 507F.2d231, (9th Cir. 1974). 
United States v. Oregon, 529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976). 
Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Washington, 550 F.2d 443 

(9th Cir. 1977) 
Kimball v. Callahan. 493 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 419 U.S. 1019 (1974) 
United States v. State of Washington. 641 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1981) 
United States v. Oregon, 718 F. 2d 299 (9th Cir. 1983) 
United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1984) 
United States v. State of Washington, 759 F.2d 1353 (9th cir. 1985). 

Kittitas Reclamation District v. Sunny side Valley Irrigation Dist. , 763 F.2d 1 032 (9th Cir. 1 985) 
United States v. Oregon, 913 F. 2d 576 (9th Cir. 1990) 
United States v. Oregon, Civ. No. 68-513-MA (9th Cir. 1994) 

Federal Court Supplements 

Seurfert v. Olney, 193 F.Supp. 200 (E.D. Wash. 191 1) 

United States v. SeufertBros. Co., 233 F. Supp 579 (D.Or. 1916), affd sub nom 

United States v. Cutler, 37 F.Supp 725 (Dist. of Idaho 1941) 

Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F.Supp. 899 (Dist. of Oregon 1969) 

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 380 F. Supp. 452 (D. Montana 1974), affd. 534 

F.2d. 1376 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 429 U.S. 929 (1976) 

Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, 460 F.Supp 1320 (E.D. Wash. 1978). affd F.2d ((th Cir. 1980) 

United States v. Washington. 506 F.Supp. 187, (W.D Wash. 1980). ( Phase II of Bolt Decision) 

Remanded to the 9th Cir. Court and vacated 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Res. vs. Alexander. 440 F.Supp. 553 (Dist. of Oregon 1 977). 

Sohappy v. Hodel, Civ. No. 86-715 (W.D. Oregon 1986) 



United States v. Oregon, 666 F.Supp. 1461 (1987), affd. 913 F.2d 576 (Dist of Oregon 1990) 
United States v. Oregon, 699 F.Supp. 1456 (1988), affd, 913 F.2d 576 (Dist. of Oregon 1990) 
Nez Perce Tribe v. Idaho Power Co., 847 F.Supp. 791 (Dist. of Idaho 1994), appeal docketed, 
No. 94-36237 (9th Cir.) 
United States v. Washington, (W.D. Wash. 1994), Civ. No. 9213, Sub-proceeding 89-3. 

Federal Indian Claims Court 

Confederated Tribes ofColville Reservation v. United States, 25 Indian CI Commission 99 (1971) 
Confederated Tribes ofColville Reservation v. United States, 43 Indian CI. Commission 505 (1978) 

State Cases of Interest 

State v. Meninook, 115 Wash. 528 (1921) 

State v. Arthur, 74 Idaho 251 P. 2d. 135 (1953), cert, denied, 347 U.S. 937 (1954) 
State v. Moses, 70 Wash. 2d 282, 422 P2d 775, cert denied, 389 U.S. 428 (1967) 
State v. Coffee, 97 Idaho 905, 556 P. 2d. 1 185 (1976) 

Other Court Cases Relevant to Affected ICBEMP Tribes, 

Supreme Court 

Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) 

The Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 pet.) 1 (1831) 

Worchesterv. State of Georgia, 31 U.S. 483 (1832) 

Mitchel v. United States, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 71 1 (1835) 

Fellows v. Blacksmith. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 366 (1856) 

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886) 

Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Co., 135 U.S. 641 (1890) 

United States v. Choctaw Nation, 1 79 U.S. 494 (189?) 

Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 294 (1902) 

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) 

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) 

New York ex rel Kennedy v. Becker, 241 U.S. 556 (1916) 

Mason v. United States, 260 U.S. 545 (1923) 

Chippewa Indians of Minnesota v. United States. 301 U.S. ?? (1937) 

United States ex rel. Hualpai Indians v. Santa Fe Pacific R.R.. 314 U.S. 339(1941) 

Seminole Nation v. U.S., 316 U.S. 310(1942) 

Sioux Tribe v. United States, 316 U.S. 317 (1 942) 

United States v. Alcea ofTillamooks, 329 U.S. 40 (1946) 

Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 337 U.S. 86 (1948) 

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States. 348 U.S. 272 (1958) 

Metlakstla Indians v. Eagon, 369 U.S. 45 (1962) 

Organized Village ofKake v. Eagan, 369 U.S. 60 (1962) 

Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) 

OneidaTribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. U.S.. Cert, denied 379 U.S. 946 (1964) 

Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. of Game of Washington. 391 U.S. 392 (1969) 

Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States. 391 U.S. 404 (1968) 

United States v. Mason. 412 U.S. 391 (1973) 

Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe 414 U.S. 44 (1973) 



Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) 

Colorado River Conservation District v. United States. 424 U.S. 800 (1976) 

United States v. Wheeler, 435 US. 313 (1978) 

Strong V. United States, 518F.2d 556 (Ct. CL.), cert, denied. 423 U.S. 1015 (1975) 

Puyallup Tribe v. Dept of Game of Washington. 433 U.S. 165 (1977) 

Oliphantv. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) 

United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) 

United States v. Washington, 443 U.S. 658, modified 444 U.S. 816(1979) 

Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979) 

Crow Tribe of Indians, Montana v. EPA, Certiorari denied 454 U.S. 1081 (1981) 

Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110(1 983) 

United States v. Mitchell, 463 206 (1983) 

Nevada v. Hodel 470 U.S. 1083 (1985) 

Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist. v. Sec. of the Interior. Cert, denied 472 U.S. 1007 (1985) 

United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986) 

Makah Indian Tribe v. United States, 501 U.S. 1250(1991) 

Federal Court Seconds 

Minnesota v. United States, 125 F.2d 636 (8th Cir. 1942) 

United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676 (1975), cert denied, 423 U.S. 1 086 (9th Cir. 1 976) 

Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 (1 st Cir. 1 975) 

Coast Indian Community v. United States, 550 F.2d 639 (Court of Claims 1977) 

United States v. Dann, 572 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1 978) 

Pugent Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. WasMngton. affd, 573 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1973) 

Sac and Fox Tribe v. Licklider, 576 F.2d 1 45 (8th Cir), cert denied, 439 US. 955 (1 978) 

United States v. Olander, 584 F.2d 876 (9th Cir. 1978) 

Navaho Tribe of Indians v. United States, 624 F.2d 981 (Court of Claims 1 980) 

Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981), Cert, denied., 454 U.S. 1081 (9th Cir. 1981) 

Blake v. Amett, 663 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1981) 

Inupiat Community v. United States, 680 F.2d 122 (Court of Claims 1982) 

Lac Court Oreilles Band, etc. v. Voigt, 700 F.2d (7th Cir. 1983) 

Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy District v. Clark, 741 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1984) 

Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist. v. Sec. Depart, of Interior, 742 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1984) 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Indian Reservation v. Board of Oil and Gas. State of 

Montana, 792 (9th Cir. 1 986) 
U.S. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 784 F. 2d 917 (9th Cir. 1986) 
Covello Indian Community v. FERC, 895 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1990) 
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Depart, of the Navy, 898 F.2d 1 401 (9th Cir. 1 991) 

Federal Court Supplements 

United States v. 4,450.72 Acres of Land, 27 F. Supp.167 (D.Minn. 1939), affd sub nom. 

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Morton 354 F. Supp. 252 (Dist. of Columbia 1973) 

United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) 

Manchester Band of Porno Indians v. U.S., 363 F.Supp, 1238 (N.D. Calif. 1973) 

United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp 312 (w.D. Wash. 1974. affd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) 

United States v. State of Minnesota, 466 F.Supp. 1382 (Dist. of Minn. 1979) 

United States v. Michigan, 471 F.Supp. 192 (W.D. Mich. 1979), appealed 

No Oilport! v. Carter, 520 F.Supp. 683 (W.D. Wash. 1981) 

Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy District v. Watt, 549 F.Supp. 704 (Dist. of Nevada 1982) 

Hoh Indian Tribe v. Baldridge, 522 F.Supp. 683 (W.D. Wash. 1 983) 

Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy District v. Watt. 549 F. Supp. 704 (Dist. of Nevada 1982) 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (Dist. of Montana 1985) 

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin, 668 F. Supp. 1233 

(Dist. of Wise. 1987) 
Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game v. NMFS, 850 F.Supp.886 (Dist. of Idaho 1 994) 



,.,-,■ ,■.:■,: ■■:■■:;■:.::■.-■: : , ;,-,-.-, ■,-,-,-,■, ■, 

..........■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ;;■;■■ 



Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns 
Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon 

Tribes and Bands 

Northern Paiute: WadaTika, Hunipui, Walpapi, Koa'agai and Kidu. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) Members of the Walpapi band of the Northern Paiute signed the Treaty with 
the Snake in 1865. The Tribe signed a treaty with the U.S. Government December 1868: Congress 
failed to ratify it. Executive Order of March 1872 established the Malheur Indian Reservation and 
recognized the Burns Paiute Indians. However, in 1883 another Executive Order dissolved the 
reservation and the tribe lost federal recognition. Federal recognition of the tribe was restored in 1968. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, socio-economic well-being on their reservation.) Public law 92-488 recognized 
the Burns Paiute Tribe and their reservation. 

Relevant Federal Court Cases 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d 701 
(9th Cir. 1981), and Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) 
affirm that federal agencies have trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect the 
water quality/ quantity, air quality, or property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: The original homeland of the Northern Paiute encompassed approximately 250 square 
miles of southeastern Oregon, northern Nevada and southwestern Idaho, northeastern California, and 
northern Nevada: March, 1872: Executive Order assigns Northern Paiute bands 1,778,560 acre 
Malheur Indian Reservation: 1875: Malheur Reservation increased to 1.8 million acres; 1876: Large 
portions of the reservation had been encroached upon and settled by non-Indians. 1878: Shoshone- 
Bannock War in Silver Creek Valley; 1879: 500 Paiutes marched to Fort Simcoe, Washington on 
Yakama Indian Reservation; 1883 Executive Order: The Malheur Indian Reservation was terminated 
and land made public domain; 1887 Indian Allotment Act: Allowed for 160 acres to each head of 
household. Today's reservation: 771 acres and 11,786 acres of 71 scattered allotments; Of the 
current 771 acre reservation, ten reservation acres are known as "Old Camp." This was the first 
property owned following the loss of their Malheur Reservation. It was given to the tribe by the local 
Eagan Land Company. The larger portion of the current reservation was purchased by the tribe in 
1935; 1972: The United States transferred title to 762 acres over to the Burns Paiute and established 
the Burns Paiute Reservation through public law 92-488; 1983/1984: An additional two 160 acres 
land parcels were acquired from Jesse James Toolies estate. These two land blocks are located 
adjacent to approximately 1 1,785 acres of land scattered over four townships in eastern Harney 
county. They are held in Trust and administered by the BIA for the Tribe. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Burns Paiute Tribe; HC 71, 100 Pasigo Street, Burns, Oregon 97720; Phone: 541-573-2088: 
Fax: 541-573-2323; Office Hours: M-F, 7:30am-4:30pm. 

Tribal Populations 

1991: 356 (215 living on the reservation): 1995: 274. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Great Basin Cultural Region: The northern division of the Paiute peoples. The original homeland of 
the Northern Paiute peoples included southeast Oregon, most of northwestern Nevada, and a 
portion of southwest Idaho. Northern Paiute associated with the Burns Indian Reservation include 
the remnants of the Wadaika, the Hunipui. the Walpapi. the Tagu, and the Kidu bands. Northern 
Paiute associated with the Burns Indian Reservation include the remnants of the Wadatika band 
(Wada Eaters who historically were centered around Malheur and Harney lakes); the Hunipui 
(Juniper-Deer Eaters of the Crooked River area): the Walpapi (Elk Eaters of the upper John Day 






River area); Tagu (Salmon Eaters of the Owyhee River area); and the Kidu (Ground Hog Eaters of 
the Fort Bidwell area). An early attempt was made to relocate some members of the Guinidiba from 
the Fort McDermitt area on the Malheur Reservation. 

Religions 

Traditional beliefs and Christian denominations. 

Languages 

English and Northern Paiute. 

Governance 

The Burns Paiute Tribal Council was formed in 1938 through the Indian Reorganization Act. 
Secretary of the Interior approves the Burns Paiute Business Constitution and By-Laws. The 
Tribal Council was established in 1988 by the Tribe. The Tribal Council consists of 7 elected 
members. The tribe is self-governing. 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

A hunter-gatherer economy depended on annual subsistence rounds among regional subsistence areas. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Farm (110 acre); Gaming is currently being considered. 

Tribal Private Sector 

Ranching. 

Tribal Newspaper 

The Tu Kwa Hone Newsletter: information for members on tribal government activities. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Youth opportunities; Law enforcement; Cultural 

Tribal Fisheries/Gathering Areas 

John Day, Powder, Silvies, Crooked, Malheur, Blitzen, and Owyhee Rivers; Harney and Malheur 
Lakes. The BLM has cooperatively worked with the tribe and protected a biscuitroot root field area 
on BLM land and provided it special management. 

Tribal Contact 

Linda J. Reed-Jerofke; Phone: 541-573-7108. Fax: 541-573-2422. 

Agency Contact 

Gordon Cannon, Superintendent on Warm Springs Agency, BIA; P.O. Box 1239, Warm Springs, OR 
97761-0277. Phone:541-553-2411. Fax:541-553-2426. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural: Unanticipated obligations (for example, funerals, illnesses) may affect tribal meeting 

schedules. 

Government: Two council members are elected each year for two consecutive years and three 

members in the third year. Nominations are in June and Council elections are held in August of 

each year. Tribal Council typically meets weekly. 

Tribal Council 

Wanda Johnson, Chairperson; Myra Peck. Vice-Chairperson; Cecil Dick, Sergeant at Arms; Maria 
Teton, Secretary. Council members: Nora Teeman, Diane Teeman, and Lillian Maynard. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members, 18 years of age or older, meet at least once a year to address tribal 
business and help provide direction to the Tribal Council. Tribal Council meets twice a year in the 
months of January and June. Special Council meetings may be held as warranted by Tribal issues. 

Tribal Committees 

Election; Enrollment; Housing; Culture; Parent, Child Protection Team; Farmland. 




Burns Paiute Tribe 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 



Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th I IUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



! ' ' Burns Paiute Tribe 
Area ol Interest 



Water 
/ ^ / Major Rivers 
<*V Major Roads 
y '~-" State Borders 
S^* US Area Border 




.,:,:,:,:,■'.' :' i '' : : ry r--y-:^^-M-y0m^;Mm- 



Coeur d'Alene Tribe of the Coeur 
d'Alene Reservation, Idaho 

Coeur d'Alene, Spokane, San Joe (St. Joseph) River, and Coeur d'Alene. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) In 1867 the Coeur d'Alene Reservation was established for the Coeur d'Alene, 
Kalispel, Spokane, Sanpoil, and Colville bands. The Coeur d'Alene never moved to that reservation; 
In 1873 Executive Order established a 592,000 acre reservation for the Coeur d'Alene tribe; In 
1887 an agreement to strengthen the commitment of the U.S. Government to secure tribal lands 
reduced the reservation land base. The Spokane, Kalispel, Colville, and Pend Oreille tribal 
members agreed to move to the reservation; In 1889 an Executive Order ceded all homeland of the 
tribe, in addition to the forty percent of reservation agreed to in 1887; In 1894 an agreement 
removed the town of Harrison. Idaho from the reservation. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, socio-economic well-being on their reservation) Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. 
Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d (9th Cir. 1981), and Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal agencies have 
trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect water quality and quantity, air quality, or 
property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: 4 million acre territory bordered by Clark Fork River on the east in Montana, Clearwater 
River Territories to the south, Spokane Falls to the west, and Lake Pend Oreille to the north; 1873: 
Executive Order established 592,000 acre reservation: 1889: Executive Order has Coeur d'Alene 
cede all land except for reservation; 1894: Agreement changes northern border to exclude the town 
of Harrison, Idaho; today's reservation: Total of 345,000 acres; Tribal lands: 27,742 acres; Allotted 
lands: 40,718 acres; Fee lands: 276,540 acres. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Coeur d'Alene Tribal Headquarters; 850 A Street, P.O. Box 408, Plummer, ID 83851-9704; Phone: 
208-686-1800; Fax: 208-686-1182. 

Tribal Population 

Pre-1855: 3-4000; 1985: 853 on reservation: 1995: 1,300. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Plateau Cultural Region Religions: Christian denominations. 

Languages 

English and Interior Salish. 

Governance 

Constitution approved September 2, 1949 and amended in 1960/61. The Constitution provides for 
a General Council and seven council members. Council members are elected to three year terms. 
The council delegates authority for implementation of the Council's legislative actions to the 
Administrative Director. 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

Fishing, hunting, farming, cattle, horses, and gathering with local and regional trade. 






Tribal Enterprises 

Coeur d'Alene Tribal Farm: Jack Miller; Benewah Market, owned and operated by the tribe; Coeur 
d'Alene Tribal Bingo-Casino located in Worley, Idaho; Tribal Development Center; Benewah Medical 
Center; Benewah Auto Center. 

Tribal Private Sector 

Individual farms: Indian smoke shops. 

Museum 

The Coeur d'Alene Tribe maintains historical archives. A cultural interpretative center is located at 
Heyburn State Park. The Cataldo Mission Site. Cataldo. Idaho has a small museum and 
interpretative center. 

Tribal Newspaper 

Coeur d'Alene Council Fires: Schee-chu-umsh Sqwlp-N' Mut; Phone: 208-686-1800. 

Tribal Programs 

Personal, Property and Supply: Finance; Planning and Natural Resources: Education and Career 
Development; TERO. Fisheries Enhancement Program (BPA) 

Tribal Fisheries 

Coeur d'Alene River including Lake Coeur d'Alene. St Joe River, St Marie River. 

Tribal Contact 

Chuck Finan, Natural Resources Department Director; Coeur d'Alene Tribal Headquarters: 
Plummer, ID 98351-9704; Phone: 208-686-1088: Fax: 208-686-1 182. Non-policy contacts: Janel 
McCurdy, Forest Manager; Phone: 208-686-1855. 

Agency Contact 

Mike Morigeau, Field Representative, Northern Idaho Agency, 850 A Street, P.O. Box 408, 
Plummer, ID 83851; Phone: 208-686-1887; Fax: 208-686-1903. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cu.ltu.ral: August 15th, Feast of the Assumption, Cataldo, Mission; Good Friday and Easter 
Sunday; 4th Friday in September; National American Indian Day, 4th Friday in October; Water 
Potato Day. 

Tribal Council 

Ernest Stensgar, Chairperson; Lawrence S. Aripa, Vice-Chairman; Norma J. Peone, Secretary and 
Treasurer; Council members: Marjorie E. Zarate, Norman Campbell, Henry J. Sijohn, Albert R. 
Garrick. Tribal Council meets each Thursday of the week. The general membership meets 
quarterly with the option to hold special meetings as warranted by tribal issues. The general 
membership helps to provide direction to the Tribal Council or Tribal matters. 

Cultural History Information 

The Coeur d'Alene had intermittent contact with fur traders and Hudson Bay people before 
permanent contact with Euroamericans; this began in 1 842 with the establishment of a Catholic 
Mission near St. Maries, Idaho by Father Pierre DeSmet. References: Connolly. Thomas E.. 1990, 
A Coeur d'Alene Indian Story and 1990, Saga of the Coeur d'Alene Indians: Boas and Teit. 1985. 
Coeur d'Alene, Flathead, and Okanogan Indians. 




Coeur d'Alene Tribe 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 



Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 



INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



*W=Si=t 



3 Coeur d'Alene Iribe 
Area of Interest 



SS5^ Coeur d'Alene Reservation 

EHH water 

/Ny/ Major Rivers 

^ Major Roads 

/ s ' State Borders 

S^f US Area Border 




...,.,..,..,,.,.,:,■.■:■:■.::■.:,,,.;;■:■;■ 




Coeur d'Alene Tribe 

Map 2. 

Court of Claims 



Source: Dept. of Interior, Portland Area BIA jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROIECT 

Project Area 
'1996 



r~ — i 



Coeur d'Alene Tribe 
Court of Claims 



^^ Coeur d'Alene Reservation 

//S S Major Rivers 

<A^ Major Roads 

'■*' State Borders 

S*-' EIS Area Border 



3? i 

1' 


^ 


\r^T L_ 






Confederated Tribes of the Colville 
Reservation, Washington 



Tribes and Band 

Methow, Sanpoil, Lakes, Colville (Sweelpoo). Kalispel, Spokane, Entiat. Nespelem, Chelan, 
Columbia (Senkaiuse), Chief Joseph band of the Nez Perce, Wenatchee (Wenatchapum), Southern 
Okanogan (Sinkaietk), Palouse, Lakes (Senijextee). 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) Nez Perce and Yakama Treaties of June 9th, 1855; Executive Order of April 
9, 1872 superseded by Executive Order of July 2. 1872: Executive Orders of March 6, 1879, 
February 23. 1883, March 6, 1880. May 1, 1886; Agreements of May 9, 1891, July 1, 1892, 
December 1, 1905, March 22. 1906; Act of June 20. 1940. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, aboriginal rights, socio-economic well-being on their reservation, and 
reserved rights.) "Yakama" Treaty of 1855, Article 3: "Right of fishing at all usual and accustomed 
places in common with citizens of the Territory: and erecting temporary buildings for curing, 
together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and 
cattle upon open and unclaimed land." Agreement of 1891, Article 6: ". . . Indians shall enjoy . . . 
the right to use all water power and sources belonging to or connected with lands to be so allotted, 
and the right to hunt and fish in common with all other persons on lands not allotted to said 
Indians shall not taken away or otherwise abridged." 

Relevant Federal Court Decisions 

(Colville as party to case) Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation v. U.S., 25 Indian CI. Comm'n 
99, 108-13 (1971); Yakima v. U.S., 1963-12 Ind. CI. Com. 362, 1973-Final Judgment; Antoine v. 
Washington, 1974; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Morton 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973); 
Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation v. U.S., 43 Indian CI. Comm'n 505 (1978); Colville 
Confederated Tribes v. Walton, 460 F. Supp. 1320 (E.D. Wash. 1978), affd F. 2d. (9th Cir. 1980); 
Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981); and Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. 
Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal agencies have trust obligations when their actions 
may adversely affect the water quality/quantity, air quality, or property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: 2.8 million unallotted acres. Present: 1.4 million acres or 2,100 square miles. April 9, 
1872: Reservation established encompassing areas of northeastern modern Washington; July 2. 
1872: Reservation area changed to north- central area of modern Washington; April 19, 1879: 
Columbia/Moses Reservation boundaries established north to the British Columbia border; March 
6, 1880: Columbia Reservation expanded west to Lake Chelan; February 23, 1883: Large portions 
of Columbia Reservation restored to public domain; May 1, 1886: Remaining Columbia Reservation 
restored to public domain. Indian allotments retained. Members removed to Colville Reservation. 
Columbia Reservation allotments are retained; May 9, 1891 Agreement: Tribes ceded northern half 
of Colville Reservation to Canada: July 1 , 1892: A portion of reestablished reservation of July 2, 
1872 vacated and restored to public domain; December 1, 1905: All of diminished reservation's 
right and title relinquished to U.S.: June 20, 1940: Land reclamation by U.S. for construction of 
the Grand Coulee Dam. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Colville Business Council; P.O. Box 150. Nespelem, WA 99155; Phone: 509-634-471 1; 
Fax: 509-634-41 16; Business Hours: 7:30am- 4:00pm. 






■:■::■■■:■: :,;■:;■: :,■:■: 



Tribal Population 

1995: 7,992 with about 50 percent residing on the reservation. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Plateau Cultural Region. 

Religions 

Christian denominations. Traditional beliefs, and Washat (Seven Drums). 

Languages 

Interior Salsih, Sahaptin, and English. 

Governance 

The Colville Tribe did not adopt the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The Tribe operates under a 
constitutional form of government with a Business Council since 1938. The tribal constitution has 
been amended nine times, the first on June 15. 1946 and the last on May 8. 1988. The Colville 
Tribes are implementing their 1995 Indian self-determination agreement (co-op management 
agreement) by and between the CTCIR and the BIA, which integrates functions and staff. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Colville Tribal Enterprises Corp.: Timber and wood products mills; bingo; casino; three grocery 
stores; Grand Coulee houseboat fleet: power revenues from Grand Coulee Dam. 

Tribal Private Sector 

Ranching; Arts and Crafts; Retail Trade; and other commercial businesses. 

Museum 

Colville Tribe Museum, Grand Coulee, WA. Phone: 509-634-8863. 

Newspaper 

Tribal Tribune; P.O. Box 150, Nespelem. WA 99155; Sheila Whitlaw; Phone: 509-634-4711, ext. 835; 
Fax:509-634-4116. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Fisheries; Archeology and History Department. 

Tribal Fisheries 

Columbia, Entiat, Okanogan, Lower Kettle, Nespelem, Sanpoil, Wenatchee, Chelan and Methow 
Rivers; Lake Chelan; Crab and Entiat Creeks; Rock Island, Cabinet, and Gualquil rapids. 

Tribal Contact 

Tony Atkins, Natural Resource Administrator: Phone: 509-634-8882; Fax: 509-634-8685. 
Joe Peone, Acting Director Fish and Game; Phone: 509-634-8845; Fax: 509-634-8592. 
Debbie Rosenblaum, Tribal Administration (tribal organizational information). 

Agency Contact 

William E. (Gene) Nicholson, Superintendent, Colville Indian Agency, BIA; P.O. Box 111, Nespelam, 
WA 99155; Phone: 509-634-4901. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural: Pow Wow Celebrations, other significant social gatherings, and unanticipated events, 
such as funerals and illnesses, could impact tribal meeting schedules. 



Government: The Business Council is elected from four reservation districts. Two groups of seven 
Council members are elected to four year terms in staggered biennial elections. Following elections 
in mid-May, a Chairman and Vice-Chairman are chosen by the Council's Executive Committee and 
a Secretary and Treasurer are selected by the Business Council. General Council elections are 
held in late June. The General Council meets at least once a year and provides direction to the 
Business Council; however, they are expected to start meeting semi-annually. Reservation district 
Council members may meet as warranted by tribal issues. 

Colville Business Council 

Term from July 1995 to July 1997. Donald "D.R." Michel, Inchelium District Position 1; Wilfred 
"Deb" Louie, Nespelem District Position 1; Frances Charette, Inchelium District Position 2; Gloria 
Picard, Secretary, Nespelem District Position 2 : Joe Pakootas. Vice-Chair, Inchelium District 
Position 3; Harvey Moses Jr., Nespelem District Position 3; Richard Swan, Inchelium District 
Position 4: Eddie Palmanteer Jr.. Omak District Position 1; Jeanne Jerred, Keller District Position 
1; Margie C. Hutchinson, Omak District Position 2; Walt Arnold, Keller District Position 2; Dale 
Kohler, Omak District Position 3; Louella Anderson, Omak District Position 4; Colville Business 
Council meets together the 1st and 3rd Thursday of each month. 

Contact: Mathew Dick Jr., Chairman: P.O. Box 150, Nespelem, WA 99155: Phone: 509-634-4711. 

Business Council Committees 

Management and Budget; Tribal Government: Resource Management; Public Safety; Human 
Services; Education and Employment; Community Development. Business Council Committee 
meeting times: Colville Business Council, Mathew Dick Jr., 1st and 3rd Thursday of month; 
Management and Budget, Gloria Picard, 1st and 3rd Monday of month; Tribal Government, Margie 
Hutchinson, 2nd and 4th Monday of month; Resource Management, Deb Louie, 1st and 3rd 
Tuesday of month; Public Safety, Walt Arnold, 2nd and 4th Tuesday of month; Human Services, 
Louella Anderson, 1st and 3rd Wednesday of month: Education and Employment, Harvey Moses 
Jr., 2nd and 4th Wednesday of month; Community Development, D.R. Michel, 2nd and 4th 
Thursday of month. 

Community and Economic Planning 

Ted J. Bessette; Phone: 509-634-471 1. From spring through fall, Pow Wow Celebrations and other 
significant social gatherings occur and are well attended by the tribe. These events usually occur 
on weekends, often beginning Fridays. Unanticipated events that may obligate extended-family 
involvement, such as funerals, weddings and illnesses, could impact tribal meetings. 







Confederated Tribes of the 

Colville Reservation 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 



Displayed interest area Is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROIECT 

Project Area 
1996 



JPih 



' I Colville Tribes 
Area of Interest 

ESSS3 Colville Reservation 

■^z Major Rivers 

^ Major Roads 

y '^' State Borders 

S^S tIS Area Border 








Confederated Tribes of the 

Colville Reservation 

Map 2. 

Ceded Lands 

Source: Dept. of Interior, Portland Area BIA Jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



ls^ 



' ' I Yakama Treaty 

S5^i Colville Reservation 

^■i Water 

/%s/ Major Rivers 

■^ Major Roads 

S-' State Borders 

^^ EIS Area Border 




;.:&*_*' ■-■- -- -i.*^,n.* a ,w 



Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 
Reservation, Oregon 

Tribes 

Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla Tribes. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty; U.S. constitution) Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla Tribes, 
1855; Act of March 3, 1885, ratified on March 12, 1859 (Statute 945); CTUIR Constitution of 1949 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, aboriginal rights; pre-existing treaty reserved rights and socio-economic well- 
being on their reservation.) Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla Tribes, 1855, Article 
1: ". . . Provided, also, that the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and 
bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and 
accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United States, and of erecting suitable 
buildings for curing the same: the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and pasturing 
their stock on unclaimed lands in common with citizens, is also secured to them." 

Relevant Federal Court Decisions 

(CTUIR as named party to case) Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Calloway, 
No. 72-21 1 (D. Or. 1973); United States v. Oregon, 529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976). CTUIR v. 
Alexander, 440 F.Supp.553 (D. Or. 1977). Many other court cases are relevant to CTUIR though not 
a named party. The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe u. Morton 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. 
E.P.A. 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981), and Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 
(D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal agencies have trust obligations if their actions may affect the water 
quality/ quantity, air quality, or property of Indian reservations in addition to treaty reserved rights. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: 6.4 million acres in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Trough the 
treaty of 1855 a reservation was established at 254,699 according to 1859 survey. Through the 
Dawes Allotment Act of March 3, 1885 the reservation was diminished to 158.000 acres. In the 
1880s, 640 acres were sold to the City of Pendleton. October 17, 1888 - The reservation size 
increased for agricultural lands. The Restoration Act era (1922-1939) took lands off the market, 
and restored 14, 139 acres to tribes, including McKay Dam/Reservoir in 1927. The Johnson Creek 
Restoration Act restored lands to trust. In 1969, the reservation was 95,273 acres in size and 
today it is 89,350 acres (21,000 acres in trust and 68,350 acres allotted.) 

Tribal Headquarters 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Mission Highway, Mission, OR; P.O. Box 
638, Pendleton, OR 97801; Phone: 541-276-3165; Office hours: M-F, 7:30am- 4:00pm. 

Tribal Population 

Pre-1855: 8,000 [est.]; 1855 Treaty Era: 1.500 (BIA census); 1992: 1,456; and 1995: 1,900 enrolled 
members. According to a 1990 census there are 1,473 non-Indian reservation population. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Plateau Cultural Region, southeastern Plateau. 

Languages 

English, Sahaptin dialects (Umatilla. Walla Walla) Nez Perce dialects. 



Governance 

The Tribes rejected the Indian Reorganization Act in 1935 by tribal referendum. Constitution and 
By-laws were adopted November, 1949. The Tribes established a nine member Board of Trustees 
(BOT) and a General council, which replaced consensus decision making process by majority vote 
rule. The BOT sets policy, and makes final tribal decisions. Resource use is regulated by tribal 
ordinance and codes, customs, and traditions. Gary George is the Tribes' Executive Director and 
oversees departmental staff. Tribal departments include administration, economic and community 
development, health and human services, natural resources, education, fire protection, police and 
tribal services. 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

Fishing/Hunting/Gathering. Wholesale and retail intertribal trade extending from the Pacific coast 
to the Great Plains. Trading, livestock, tribute (taxes), raiding. Horse husbandry with herds 
estimated at 15,000 to 20.000. Warefare in the Great Plains and Great Basin. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Tribal Farm Enterprises; Mission Market; Duff Property; Lucky Seven Trailer Court; Indian Lake 
and Campgrounds; Wildhorse Casino; Youth Hall; Cooperative Umatilla Hatchery; grain elevator. 
Native plant nursery. 

Tribal Private Sector 

Agriculture; livestock; fishing; wholesale and retail trade; timber: food stands, artists, construction 
contractors. 

Education Institutions 

Cay-Uma-Wa, preschool; charter school and native language program. 

Museum 

Tumustalik Cultural Institute (Oregon Trail Interpretive Center); Location: On the reservation off of 
Interstate 8. Opening scheduled for June 1997. 

Tribal Newspaper 

Confederated Umatilla Journal; P.O. Box 638, Pendleton. OR 97801: Phone: 541-276-3570: 
Published monthly. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Department of Natural Resources; Environmental Planning/ Rights Protection; Umatilla Basin 
Project; Tribal Water Program; Special Sciences and Resources Program, Fisheries, Wildlife, 
Cultural Resources Protection, and Salmon Corps. 

Tribal Fisheries 

Grande Ronde, Imnaha, John Day, Tucannon, Walla Walla, Wallowa, Touche. Umatilla, Columbia, 
and Minam Rivers; Lookingglass. Eagle, Cathrine, Pine, and Willow Creeks and tributaries. 

Tribal Contact 

Kim Sullivan, Policy Analyst; Phone: 541-276-3449. Michael J. Farrow, Director DNR. Paul 
Minthorn, Deputy Director, DNR. Rick George, DNR Program Manager - Phone: 541-276-3449. 

Agency Contact 

Phil Sanchez, Superintendent, BIA; P.O. Box 520, Pendleton, OR 97801-0520; Phone: 541-278- 
3786: Fax: 541-276-3786. 



. .,..™„> 



Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cidturah The Tribes annually celebrate Salmon and Root Feasts, which includes feast 
preparations, a Pow Wow. Fun Run. Group Horse ride tours, and Flea Mart in the spring; Father's 
Day Fish Derby; Huckleberry Feast in mid-summer; Pendleton Round-up; Veterans' Day Pow Wow 
in the fall; Christmas; New Years; Dances in mid-winter; 4th of July Pow Wow; Atlatl contest. 

Government In 1 993 the General Council voted to change a staggered term election system to one 
that elects all Board of Trustee members and General Council positions at the same time to two 
year terms. Elected Board of Trustee members then select Board of Trustee positions and 
committee members. Next elections will be held November 1997. General Council meets monthly 
to address tribal business and usually holds special General Council sessions periodically 
throughout the year. 

Board of Trustees, CTUIR (9 members) 

Donald Sampson, Chairman of Board of Trustees; Alphonse Halfmoon, Vice-Chair; Roberta Wilson, 
Secretary; Rosenda Shippentower, Treasurer; and Kathryn Brigham, Louie Dick, Jr., Armand 
Minthorn; Jay Minthorn and Antone Minthorn members. 

General Council 

Antone Minthorn, Chairman; Tom Piere, Vice- Chairman; Sam McKay, Secretary; Inez Reeves, 
Interpreter. 

Commissions and Committees 

All BOT members, except the Chair, participate in tribal commissions and committees established 
to oversee specific tribal issues. Health and Welfare Commission; Law and Order Commission; 
Natural Resources Commission; and Tribal Farm Committee; Umatilla Reservation Housing 
Authority; Cultural Resource Commission: Celebration Committee; Education and Training 
Commission; Fish and Wildlife Committee; Tribal Water Committee; Johnson O'Malley Committee; 
Gaming Commission; Community Development Commission; Oregon Trail Cultural Institute. 



■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ' : . : '■.';■■ .;..■. "'" - 




Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 

Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



■r 



CZS23 Umatilla Tribes 
Area of Interest 

SS5S Umatilla Reservation 

■■■ Water 

/- " s/ Major Rivers 

^V- Major Roads 

'*•' State Borders 

S*S EIS Area Border 




.. .■..■..■.■..:■..:--..■....■ .■.-!■..-.:-■:-.■..'■■ .■: .;■.■..,:■;.-,;■;- 



iBWBBBI 




Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Map 2. 

Ceded Lands 

Source: Dept. of Interior, Portland Area BIA jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



T in? , '^»i" 



Walla Walla/Cayuse Treaty 
Umatilla Reservation 

^™ Water 

/\/ Major Rivers 

•^ Major Roads 

/s ' State Borders 

^^ EIS Area Border 



f \ S 



Apfrndix 1-2: Avfjucas Jjvhmj 






Confederated Tribes of the Warm 
Springs Reservation of Oregon 

Tribes and Bands 

Wasco Bands-Dalles, Ki-gal-twal-la, and Dog River; Warm Springs-Tain or Upper Deschutes, 
Wyam (Lower Deschutes), Tenino. Dock-Spus (John Day River): Northern Paiutes (Removed to 
Warm Springs Reservation in 1880s). 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty, aboriginal rights) Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855; Treaty with 
the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1865-U.S. Government negated this treaty because signers did not 
understand what they were signing. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, aboriginal rights, socio-economic well-being on their reservations and 
reserved rights) Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855, Article 1: ". . . Provided, also, that 
the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation is 
hereby secured to said Indians; and at all other usual and accustomed stations, in common with 
citizens of the United States, and of erecting suitable houses for curing the same; also the 
privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands, in 
common with citizens, is secured to them." 

Relevant Federal Court Decisions 

(Warm Springs as party to case) Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs v. U.S., 1 17 Ct. CI. 189 
(1966); Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969); U.S. v. Oregon, 529 F.2d 570 (D. Or. 
1976). On reservation: Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), 
Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981), and Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 12 Indian L. 
Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal agencies have trust obligations if their actions may 
affect the water quality/quantity, air quality, or property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: 10 million acres in Oregon; 1974: McQuinn tract was restored to the Tribes from the U.S. 
Forest Service. Today's reservation: 650,000 in central Oregon-over 90 percent tribally owned. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; 1233 Veteran Street, P.O. Box C. 
Warm Springs, OR 97761: Phone: 541-553-1161: Office hours M-F. 7:30am-4:30pm. 

Tribal Population 

1992:3,410. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Plateau and Great Basin. 

Religions 

Washat (Seven Drums), Wasklikie (Feather), Shaker, and Christian denominations. 

Languages 

English. Chinookan. Sahaptin. and Northern Paiute. 

Governance 

The tribal general council adopted the Indian Reorganization Act in 1935 and adopted a 
Constitution and By-laws in 1938. The tribes are self-governing. 



:':-:.■ ■:■;■;■; ■:■;' ;' ;' :■::■■ ■.■■.': : . ...'.'.' . 



Tribal Enterprises 

Kah-Nee-Ta Resort: Tribal Construction: Warm Springs Power Enterprises; Warm Springs 
Crushing; Warm Springs Composite Products; Warm Springs Forest Products Industries; Warm 
Springs Apparel Industries; Warm Springs Clothing Company; Business Development: Special 
Products. Museum at Warm Springs, and Warm Springs Gaming. 

Tribal Private Sector 

Chevron Station; Deschutes Crossing; Warm Springs Market; Radio Station; Museum: Arts and 
Crafts; Commercial Services. 

Museum 

The Museum at Warm Springs; Just off Highway 26 near Warm Springs; Phone: 541-553-3331. 

Tribal Newspaper 

SpilyayTymoo; P.O. Box 870, Warm Springs, OR 97761; Phone: 541-553-1644; Published bi-weekly. 

Tribal Radio 

Public Radio; KWSO 91.9 FM. Phone: 541-553-1968. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Cultural and Heritage; Law and Order; Wildlife, and Fish; Natural Resources: Environmental protection. 

Tribal Fisheries 

Columbia, Crooked, Deschutes. Hood, and John Day Rivers, Fifteen Mile Creek. 

Tribal Contact 

Olney (JP) Patt Jr., Natural Resources; Phone: 541-553-3233/3234; Fax: 541-553-3359. 
Other Contacts: Delvis Heath, ceded area expert. Warm Springs Chief; Delbert Frank, Culture and 
Heritage Committee; Gene Greene Sr., Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 
(CRITFC) and Fish and Wildlife Committee, Head of Policy, Natural Resources Department; Charles 
(Jody) Calica, General Manager, Natural Resources Department; Louie Pitt Jr., Director, 
Governmental Affairs and Planning: staff support to Tribal Council; Secretary-Treasurer: records 
management, tribal code, and intergovernmental relations. 

Agency Contact 

Gordon Cannon, Superintendent of Warm Springs Agency; P.O. Box 1239, Warm Springs, OR 
97761-1239; Phone: 541-553-5527; Fax: 541-553-2426. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural: Salmon and Root Feasts: Huckleberry Feast: Pow Wow dances: Sports tournaments: 
Rodeos; Horse Races; Pi-Ume-Sha Treaty Days Celebration each June. 

Government: Eight tribal council members are elected for 3 year terms each year. Chiefs have 
lifetime tenure on the council. 

Tribal Council o/CTWSR 

Joseph Moses, Chairman, Tribal Council of CTWSR; Irene Wells, Vice-Chair; R. Calica Sr.. 
Secretaiy /Treasurer/CEO; Bruce Brunoe. Sr., Agency District; Zane Jackson, Agency District: 
Jacob Frank, Sr., Simnasho District; Wilson Wewa, Sr., Seekseequa District; Kathleen Heath, 
Simnasho District; Delvis Heath, Sr., Chief (Warm Springs); Vernon Henry, Chief (Paiute): Nelson 
Wallulatum, Chief (Wasco). 

Tribal Committees and Boards 

(Examples) Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse; Culture and Heritage Committee; Education 
Committee: Election and Counting Board: Fish and Wildlife Committees (on and off- reservation) ; 
Health and Welfare Committee; Land Use Planning Committee; Accessions Committee (MOIHS): 
Museum Boards (Directors and Regents); Range. Irrigation, and Agriculture Committee: Tax 
Commission; Timber Committee; Forest Products Industry; Water Board. 







Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 



Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC. boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



r_ — J Warm Springs Tribes 
Area of Interest 

SS333 Warm Springs Reservation 

/ ^ j/ Major Rivers 

<=*V" Major Roads 

/ ■•' State Borders 

S^S EIS Area Border 





Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation 

Map 2. 

Ceded Lands 

Source: Dept. of Interior, Portland Area BIA jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



r 



Middle Oregon Treaty 

ESS3 Warm Springs Reservation 

[ 1 Water 

■ /s ^ Major Rivers 

^^ Major Roads 

/ N ' State Borders 

S*S EIS Area Border 




Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 
Yakama Indian Nation of the Yakama 
Reservation, Washington 

Tribes and Bands 

Klickitat, Klinquit, Li-ay-was, Kow-was-say-ee, Oche-chotes, Palouse. Shyiks. Pisquosc, Sc-ap-cat, 
Skinpah, Wishram, Wenatshpam, Yakama, and Kah-milt-pah. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) Treaty with the Yakama Nation, June 9, 1 855: Agreement of January 1 3, 1 885: 
Executive Order of November 21, 1892: Request to survey and establish boundaries and comply 
with the Treaty of 1855. The spelling of Yakama was changed back to the original spelling in the 
Treaty of 1855 by vote of the Tribal Council on Jan 24, 1994 fYak[i]ma to Yak[a]ma). 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, aboriginal rights, socio-economic well-being on their reservation and treaty 
reserved pre-existing rights) Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), 
Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F. 2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981), and Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. 
Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal agencies have trust obligations when their actions 
may adversely affect the water quality/quantity, air quality, or property of Indian reservations. 
Yakama Treaty of 1855, Article 3: "The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where 
running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and 
bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common 
with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together 
with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle 
upon open and unclaimed land." 

Relevant Federal Court Decisions 

(Yakama as a party to case) U.S. v. Winans (1905); Seufert u. Olney, 193 F. Supp. 200 (E.D. Wash. 
191 1); UnitedStates v. Seufert Brothers Co., 232 F. Supp. 579 (D. Or 1916), affd sub nom; Seufert 
Brothers Co. v. U.S. (1918); Confederated Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation, 249 U.S. 194 (1919); Tulee 
v. State of Wash. (1942); Whitefootu. U.S.. 293 F. 2d. 658 (Ct. CI. 1961, cert, denied, 369 U.S. 818) 
1962; Sohappy v. Smith/U.S. v. Oregon decision (1969); Settler v. Yakima Tribal Court, 419 F. 2d 
486 (9th Cir. 1969), cert, denied 398 U.S. 903 (1970); Settler v. Lameer (1974): U.S. v. Washington 
(1974); U.S. v. Washington (1985); Kittitas Reclamation District v. Sunny side Valley Irrigation; 
Washington v. Wash. Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel (1979): U.S. v. Washington (1994). 

State Court Decisions 

(Yakama mentioned as a party to case)L/.S. v. Taylor (1887); State v. Meninook, 7 15 Wash. 528 
(1921); State v. James (1967). 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: 11.5 million acres or about 25 percent of Washington State. 1855: A reservation was 
established in south-central Washington; 1885: The Tribe relinquish land for roads, railroads, and 
depots; 1894: The Tribal Government relinquish the treaty land reserved for the Wenatshapam 
Fishery; Through Executive Order 1 1670, signed by the President on May 20, 1972, Tract D was 
transferred to the Yakima Nation from the U.S. Forest Service. Tract D includes 21,000 acres, 
10.000 of which retained its wilderness status. Today's reservation: 1.3 million acres south- 
central Washington (102,441 acres Trust land. 34.522 acres Fee land, and 38 acres administered 
byBIA). 



..■■■—.„■■■■■■■■■■■■ 

.. .. . ■ 



Tribal Headquarters 

Yakama Indian Nation; Fort Road, P.O. Box 151, Toppenish. Washington 98948; Phone: 509-865-5121; 
Fax: 509-865-2049; Office hours: M-F, 7:30am-4:30pm. 

Tribal Population 

1855: 3,900 [est.]; 1992: 8,500; 1995: 8,435. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Plateau Cultural Region. 

Religions 

Washat (Seven Drums), Feather. Shaker, and Christian denominations. 

Languages 

English, Numerous Sahaptin dialects, Chinookan, and Salish. 

Governance 

The Tribal Council is the governing body by the authority enacted by the General Council 
Resolution T-38-56. The modern form of democratic government is defined by the General Council 
Resolution of February 18, 1944, General Council Resolution Number 4 of July 9, 1947, General 
Council Resolution of July 12, 1949, General Council Resolution T-38-56 of December 6, 1955, and 
Tribal Council Resolution T- 10-61 of July 13, 1960. The tribe has a self-determination form of 
government, and functions through traditional laws, ordinances and resolutions as opposed to 
having a constitution. 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

Fishing/Gathering/Hunting; Extensive inter-tribal commerce with regional influence. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Yakama Nation Land Enterprise; Recreational Vehicle Park; Wapato Industrial Park; Real Yakama 
Fruit Stand; Production Orchards; Mont. Adams Furniture Factory; Heritage Inn Restaurant; 
Yakama Nation Credit Enterprise; Yakama Nation Cultural Center; Buffalo Herd Project. 

Tribal Private Sector 

Agriculture; ranching; fisheries; forestry; arts and crafts: construction; retail trade; and other 
commercial services. 

Reservation Education Institutions 

Heritage College, White Swan Road; Phone: 509-865-2244. 

Museum 

Yakama Nation Museum; South of highway 97, Toppenish, WA; Phone: 509-865-2800. 

Tribal Newspaper 

Yakama Nation Review; P.O. Box 310, Toppenish, WA 98948; Phone: 509-865-5121. Published 
every other Friday. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Fisheries; Cultural Resources; Wildlife; Forestry Management; Environmental Protection; 
Environmental Restoration Waste Management; Economic Development. 

Tribal Fisheries 

Wind, Klickitat, Yakama, Wenatchee, Columbia. Little White Salmon, Big White Salmon, Methow, 
Entiat, and Okanogan Rivers. 



. . .. .. 

. \ : .■ :■.. 
,/v.,. : :. : .. : .,: : .. : .. : .:. : . : ,: : .,..:. : ,,::,. : .. : .. : .. : .. :: . : ! 






Tribal Contact 

Lee Carlson, Fisheries Biologist; Phone: 509-865-6262; (DG-L.Carlson:R06F17D08A. Mr. Carlson 
monitors Forest Service and BLM agency programs and activities. 

Agency Contact 

Ernie Clark, Superintendent, Yakama Agency, BIA; Phone: 509-865-5121. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cidtural. Salmon and Root Feasts are held in April-May; Huckleberry Feasts in late June to 
early August; Speelyi-Mi Annual Indian Trade Fair in mid-March; Various Pow Wow dances; 
Basketball Tournaments; All-Indian Golf Tournament; Rodeos; Veterans dinners at Pioneer Fair, 
Indian Village Toppenish, WA are held throughout the year. 

Government: Elections are held every two years to elect one-half of the Council for four-year terms. 

Yakama Tribal Council 

Ross Sockzehigh, Chairman: Jerry Meninick. Vice-Chair: Sharon Goudy, Secretary; Augustine 
Howard, Assistant Secretary; Clifford Moses Sr.. Sergeant at Arms; Council members: Russel Billy, 
Dave Blodgett, Fred Ike, Sr., Ray C. James, Wendall Hannigan, Lonnie Selam Sr., Cecil Sanchey, 
Arlene Washines, and William Yallup Sr. 

The Tribal Council consists of 14 members elected by the General Council membership, 18 years 
and older. The General Council is led by elected council representatives. The Tribe's daily 
business is overseen by the Tribal Council; their 8 standing committees and 7 special committees 
are comprised solely of Tribal Council members. Staff work supporting the committees is done by 
tribal programs and departments. Federal agency activity issues are typically worked out through 
a designated tribal liaison and supporting tribal staff to the committees; they in turn report to the 
full Tribal Council. 

General Council 

Jeffery Bill, Chairman; Tony Washines, Vice- Chairman; Joe Jay Pinkham, Secretary. 

Tribal Council Committees 

Eight standing committees: Timber; Grazing, Overall Economic Development; Fish, Wildlife, and 
Law and Order; Loan, Extension, Education and Housing; Health, Employment, Welfare, 
Recreation and Youth Activities; Roads, Irrigation and Land: Enrollment; Legislative; Budget and 
Finance; Seven Special Committees: Tax; Immigration; Public Relations/Media; Cultural; 
Radioactive/Hazardous Waste; Heritage Center; Timber, Fish and Wildlife. 



■■:■■:■ ;:■:- . , , . ....... ...■;■.■ .■;.■■ / / ..' : .. ■■■...■■.■.;.:■...■ 












Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 



Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 



INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



Yakama Tribes 
Area ol Interest 



ESS23 Yakama Reservation 

^^ Water 

f^S Major Rivers 

^V 1 Major Roads 

/ *■' State Borders 

/ ^ / EIS Area Border 





Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation 

Map 2. 

Ceded Lands 

Source: Depl. of Interior, Portland Area BIA jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



'fa-JB^L 



-£P 



I — ^ Yakama Treaty 
&X&3 Yakama Reservation 

/s - / Major Rivers 

<^V Major Roads 

/n ' State Borders 

^^ [IS Area Border 



\ $ : ■ ■ ' — ' 


r 


** 


\r* 



Fort Bidwell Indian Community of 
Paiute Indians of the Fort Bidwell 
Reservation, California 

Tribes and Bands 

The Fort Bidwell Paiute are part of the Northern Paiute or Gidutikad Band of the Great Basin. The 
Fort Bidwell community is primarily composed of Northern Paiute whose homelands were primarily 
in the Surprise Valley and Warner Valley region of northern California and southern Oregon, and 
adjacent area of Nevada westward to the northeastern shore of Goose Lake. In addition to 
Northern Paiute, who settled in the McDermitt and Bidwell areas along the southern Oregon state 
line following the 1868 Snake Wars, others joined the settlement after release from the Yakama 
Reservation in 1883. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) The Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribe is one of the 1 8 Tribes in California that do not have 
a ratified treaty with the US government. A joint resolution of January 30, 1879 authorized the 
Secretary to use the abandoned Fort Bidwell Military Reserve for an Indian Training School. An Act 
of January 27, 1913 granted land to the People's Church for a cemetery and right-of-way over the fort 
Bidwell Indian School Reservation, the Indians to have right of internment therein (37 Stat. 652, c. 15). 
Executive Order 2679 of August 3, 1917 enlarged the Reservation. 

Basis for Off -Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, and socio-economic well-being on their reservation.) Pyramid Lake Paiute 
Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F. 2d (9th Cir. 1981), and 
Northern Cheyenne Tribe u. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal 
agencies have trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect water quality/quantity, air 
quality, or property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre-settlement: million acres in eastern Oregon, northern California, and western Idaho and 
Nevada. The (1-30-1897) reservation included 3,335 acres. Today's reservation: Total area: 4,629 
acres: Tribal owned: 3.335 acres; Allotted: 1 ,294. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Fort Bidwell Indian Community Council; P.O. Box 129, Fort Bidwell. CA 961 12: Phone: 916-279-6310, 
279-2192; Fax: 916-279-2233. Business Office Hours: 8:00am- 5:00pm, M-F 

Tribal Population 

There is a total of 217 enrolled tribal memebers of the Fort Bidwell Paiute Reservation. 

Languages 

English and Paiute. 

Governance 

The Tribe is governed under the an Indian Reorganization Act; the Constitution and By-laws were 
approved in 1936 and amended in 1940 and 1942. The members of the governing body are elected 
each November to staggered 2 -year terms. 

Tribc.'i E-7iiiierp rises 

Fort Bidwell Cattleman's Association; beading group, (jewelry and moccasins). 



:■ ■. : ■ 

Tribal Contact 

Mr. Ralph DeGarmo, Tribal Chairperson and Barbara Rutherford, Tribal Administrator at 

916-279-6310 or 916-279-2192. FAX: 916-279-2233. 

I 

5 

Agency Contact 

Dan Meza, Tribal Liaison; Modoc National Forest: 800 W. 12th St. Alturas. CA 96101; 
Phone:916-233-5811. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cu.ltu.ral: Northern Paiute: Great Basin Traditional Powwow, first weekend of August 
(annually), Fort Bid well, California. 

Government: The Tribal Council meets once a month. General elections are held twice a year in the 
months of April and November, usually the second weekend of the month. 

Tribal Council-Fort Bidwell Indian Community Council 

Ralph DeGarmo, Chairman; Lucinda Lame Bull, Vice-Chair: Mariallen Sam, Secretary; Denise 
Pollard, Treasurer; Council members: Merle DeGarmo, Cecilia Phoenix, Eugene Arnett, Beatrice 
Pollard, and Teresa Contreras. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members, 18 years of age or older, meet at least once a year to address tribal 
business and help provide direction to the Tribal Council. 







Fort Bidwell Indian 

Community of Paiute Indians 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 

Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



1 ' Fort Bidwell Palmes 
Area of Interest 

^^ Major Rivers 

^V- Major Roads 

'■•' State Borders 

S*S BIS Area Border 




jmBlBKUSEHH»HBraHm^BB^^HMBHnMi 






Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone 
Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian 
Reservation, Nevada 

Tribes and Bands 

Northern Paiute and Shoshone Tribes. The Denio and McDermitt area was the southeastern most 
territory of the Northern Paiute. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) This reservation was established as a military post in 1867 and abandoned 
some years later. The site was transferred to the Secretary of the Interior by Executive Order in 
1889, making the area public domain land. The act of August 1, 1890 authorized the disposition of 
the land under the Homestead Law. In 1892. allotments of this land were made to the Indians 
under the General Allotment Act of 1887. 

Basis for Off -Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, and socio-economic well-being on their reservation.) Pyramid Lake Paiute 
Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d (9th Cir. 1981), and 
Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal 
agencies have trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect water quality/quantity, air 
quality, or property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

1892: 35,000 acres under the Homestead Act were granted to the Tribes around the fort after the 
facilities were dissolved. Today's reservation: 35,166 acres are Tribal owned in Nevada (16,336) 
and in Oregon (18,830); 1 16,192 acres are in tribal trust. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Fort McDermitt Paiutc-Shoshonc Tribe; Fort McDermitt Tribal Council, P.O. Box 457, McDermitt, 
NV 89421; Phone: 702-532-8259: Fax: 702-532-8903. 

Tribal Population 

1996: 395 enrolled members reside on or adjacent to the reservation; total membership is about 840. 

Religions 

Traditional religions and Christian denominations. 

Languages 

English. Paiute and Shoshoni. 

Governance 

The Tribe adopted the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Constitution and By-laws were adopted 
in 1936. The governing body is the Tribal Council, whose eight members are elected to serve 4- 
year terms. 

Tribal Enterprises 

About 3500 reservation acres were irrigated in the 1980s, and plans were made to develop water 
storage along the Quinn River in Northern Nevada. Employment opportunities exist through tribal 
programs, projects, and government activities. Specialized agricultural crops, including potato 
farms, provide some employment: other opportunities are seasonal or limited to ranching and 






agricultural enterprises. Fort McDermitt Cattlemen's Association was established through the BIA 
using the authority of the Indian Re -organization Act. They have interest in about 35,000 acres of 
BLM range lands adjacent to their reservation. Production of forage hay and pasture is viable on 
the reservation, but water availability is sporadic except in above normal water years. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation interests) 

Cultural Resources, and range program. 

Tribal Contact 

Wilson Crutcher, Chairman; Fort McDermitt Tribal Council; P.O. Box 457, McDermitt, NV 89421; 
Phone: 702-532-8259; Fax: 702-532-8903. 

Agency Contact 

Robert Hunter, Superintendent, BIA; 1677 Hot Springs Rd. Carson City, NV 89706; Phone: 702- 
887-3503; Fax: 702-887-3531. 

Scott Bell, District Ranger, Forest Service; 2035 Last Chance Rd. Elko, NV 89801-4938; Phone: 
702-738-5171; Fax: 702-778-0299. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Government: The Tribal Council elections are held every four years in November. The last election 
was held in November 1995. The Tribal Council meets on the second Tuesday of each month; the 
enrolled members of the General Council are welcome to attend. 

Tribal Council 

Wilson Crutcher, Chairman; Ernestine Coble, Treasurer; Council members: Bradley Crutcher. 
Remaining 5 council positions are pending. 




Fort McDermitt Paiute 

and Shoshone Tribes 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 



Displayed interest urea is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
'1996 



miles ; 



Fort McDermitt Tribes 
Area of Interest 



Water 
' rs S Major Rivers 
<*V Major Roads 
So' State Borders 
S^S EIS Area Border 




: '." 



. i... ,.. _ :..-. :■. 



Kalispel Indian Community of the 
Kalispel Reservation, Washington 



Tribes and Bands 

"People of the Pend Oreille" 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) Executive Order April 21, 1887 (agreement with about 50 percent the tribe); 
April 23, 1904: Executive Order established the reservation; March 23, 1914: Allotment Act 1924 
Lower Pend d'Oreille or Kalispel Tribe. The Kalispel were known as the Aqulispi'lem, a personified 
form of the place name applied to their Kalispel Lake camas grounds, literally meaning Kalispel 
People. The Chewelah were a group of Kalispel that migrated to their historic homeland. The 
Chewelah were known as the Slate'ise. a personified form of a place name. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, and socio-economic well-being on their reservation.) Pyramid Lake Paiute 
Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d (9th Cir. 1981), and 
Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal 
agencies have trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect water quality/quantity, air 
quality, or property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: The homeland of the Kalispel tribe encompassed an area from western Montana, 
southeastern British Columbia, and approximately 200 miles along the Pend Oreille River in 
northern Idaho, a portion of northwestern Montana, and northeastern Washington. 1890 to 1914: 
U.S. Government attempted to move the Kalispel to the Flathead Reservation; March 23, 1914: The 
Kalispel Tribe was provided a 4,630 acre reservation in Washington of which about 410 acres is 
owned by the Tribe. Today: The reservation is about 4550 acres. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Kalispel Tribe of Indians; P.O. Box 39, Usk, WA 99180-0039; Phone: 509-445-1147; 
Fax: 509-445-1705; Tribal offices open only M-Th. 

Tribal Population 

1780: 1200-1500; 1850: 500-600; April 8,1872: 420; 1911: 100; 1875: 395; Today: 327. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Southern Plateau. 

Religions 

Christian denominations, primarily Catholic. 

Languages 

English and Northwest Interior Salish dialects. 

Governance 

The Tribal Constitution and Charter was adopted on March 24, 1938 and revised on July 27, 1967. 
In addition to the Constitution, Tribal Council resolutions create tribal law. The five member Tribal 
Council is elected to three year terms. 



: ^1,;,;. ,■,■,■,--, 



. ■" ■ ■•" ...'.."'.v.'..'..."... ."..'.. . ■. . .'....'. ■■■■■■.■■■■.■■■■.■■.■■■ 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

Subsistence based: Hunting, fishing, gathering, and trading. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Kalispel Case Line; Kalispel Metal Products; Sen-tu-me Store; Buffalo Enterprises, Kalispcl 
Ceremonial Park. 

Tribal Newspaper 

The Tribe publishes information regularly in the New Cusick Newsletter, published weekly. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation interests) 

Cultural resource program. 

Tribal Contact 

Glen Nenema, Director, Kalispel Business Committee; P.O. Box 39 Usk, WA 99180; Phone: 509- 
445-1 147. Bill Towey, Natural Resource Department. 

Agency Contact 

George Buckingham; Colville National Forest; Phone: 509-684-3711; Fax: 509-684-7280. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural: Barter Fair Pow Wow held in May and September; Salish Traditional Fair held annually 
in the second week of August; Kalispel Indian Rodeo; Annual Mass at the New Manresa Grotto. 

Government: General Council meets at least a year, usually in early fall. The Tribe holds Tribal 
Council elections in June of each year. These five positions are three year terms. Over a three 
year period, all Council positions are elected. In the first year, two positions are filled; in the 
second year, one position is filled; in the third year, two positions are filled. 

Tribal Council 

Glen Nenema, Chairman; Lloyd Finley, Vice-Chair: Susan Finley, Secretary; Loren Bowman, Stan 
Bluff, Council meets as needed. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members, 18 years of age or older, meet at least once a year to address tribal 
business and help provide direction to the General Council. 

Tribal Committees 

Lorraine Wood, Administration and Business: Robert Russell. Community Services: Mike Jones. 
Community Development; Bill Towey, Natural Resources: Dave Bonga, Planning, Education and 
Research. 

References 

An excellent reference to get an expanded picture of the Kalispel Tribe is the publication called The 
Kalispels: People of the Penal Oreille, 1980, O. J. Cotes, Editor and Project Director. Published by 
the Office of Technical Assistance and Training, Brigham City, Utah 84302. 




Kalispel Tribe of Indians 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 



Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th I IUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



r^^^^^^s^m 



iiin ii^^m 3^^«> 



[=-J Kalispel Tribe 
Area of Interest 



Water 
/ * v ' Major Rivers 
^V - Major Roads 
/ " s ' State Borders 
S^S EIS Area Border 



Of / "^^^^\ v 






L 




Kalispel Tribe of Indians 

Map 2. 

Court of Claims 



Source: Dept. of Interior, Portland Area BIA Jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



E--ZE3 Kalispel Tribe of Indians 
Court of Claims 

^■^ Major Rivers 

•# i V- M a j or Roads 

S*' Stale Borders 

S^S c/s Area Border 




Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon 

Tribes and Bands 

Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin Band of the Snake Paiutes. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty)Treaty with the Klamath Nation, October 14, 1864, ratified February 15, 1870; 
Agreement of June 1901; Klamath Termination Act 14 as amended, August 13, 1954; re-recognized by 
U.S. Government; restored to Federal and State legal status and recognition, August 27, 1986. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

NAGPRA, NARFA, NEPA, NFMA etc. are applicable to the original 22 million acres in the ceded 
lands and aboriginal area. All land management practices that affect Treaty resources, both within 
and adjacent to the Klamath Treaty Rights area, are subject to consideration through 
interpretation and application of the Treaty of 1864. Also, Kimball vs. Callahan has affirmed the 
Klamath Tribes' treaty rights and federal responsibility for protection of Treaty resources. Recent 
court decisions have further affirmed the Tribes' position as land management consultants in order 
to protect Treaty rights. 

Relevant Federal Court Decisions 

U.S. v. Klamath & Moadoc Tribes, 304 U.S. 1 19 (1938); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768 (CA9), 
cert, denied, 444 U.S. 826 (1979); United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1984); Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Dept. v. Klamath Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (9th Cir. 1985) "... the Ninth circuit has 
held that the language of the 1864 Treaty also served to reserve for the Tribes a right to hunt and 
trap game within the reservation, as well as the rights to fish and gather."; Klamath Tribes v. 
United States of America, Div. No. 96-381 -HA (D.Or.. October 2, 1996), Opinion and Order 
preliminarily enjoined seven timber sales on former Klamath reservation lands challenged on 
Treaty and trust responsibility grounds; court held that the Forest Service cannot go forward with 
these sales "without ensuring, in consultation with the Klamath Tribes on a government-to- 
government basis, that the resources on which the Tribes treaty rights depend will be protected." 
Id. @ 25; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe u. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 
F. 2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981), and Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 
1985) affirm that federal agencies have trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect 
the water quality/quantity, air quality, or property of an Indian reservation. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: About 22 million acres. Today: 350 plus acres in Trust, non-reservation status; Oct. 14, 
1864: Reservation boundaries are set at 1.9 million acres; 1871 boundary survey: An erroneous 
survey for reservation boundaries excludes over 617,000 acres of land: June 17, 1901: A portion of 
the Klamath Reservation establish in 1864 is relinquished (621,824 acres); 1954: Klamath 
Reservation is terminated by Congress under the Termination Act; August 1986: Tribe re- 
instatement; Area of ceded rights: 1.2 million acres in south-central Oregon. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Klamath Executive Committee; Box 436, Chiloquin, OR 97624; Phone: 541-783-2219; 
Office hours M-F, 8:00am-5:00pm. 

Tribal Population 

1977: 2.133; 1996: 3.096. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Plateau: Klamath and Modoc; Great Basin: Yahooskin Band. 



.,.,,..,,,...,,.,,,,,,.:,,,,.:,,.:.:. 



Religions 

Christian influence, Indian Shaker, and individual and family traditional beliefs and practices. 

Languages 

English, Klamath-Modoc, and Northern Paiute. 

Governance 

The tribe accepted the Indian Reorganization Act of 1 934 and adopted a Constitution and By-laws 
in 1954. Recently revised in 1992. Ordinances and codes provide further Tribal regulation. 

Tribal Enterprises 

The Tribes' fish hatchery is for research purposes. The Klamath Tribes Economic Development 
Corporation is in the incubation processes. Tribal gaming is to begin in the second quarter of 1997. 

Tribal Private Sector 

Individual Tribal members own businesses in ranching, logging, lumber milling, retail sales, 
construction, computer sales and service, commercial art, jewelry making, hand crafts, etc. 

Tribal Newspaper 

Klamath News; The Klamath Tribe, P.O. Box 436, Chiloquin, OR 97624; Phone: 541-783-2219: 
Published bi-monthly. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Klamath Tribe National Resources Department: Cultural and Heritage Program; Fish and Wildlife 
Management Plan: Provide direction for operations of the Klamath Tribe Natural Resource 
Department. 

Tribal Fisheries 

Williamson, Sprague, Wood, and Klamath Rivers, Klamath Lake, Crooked Creek, Spring Creek, 
Seven and Three Mile Creeks, and a dozen or so more smaller creeks not listed here. 

Tribal Contacts 

Tribal Government: Jeff Mitchell, Chairman, The Klamath Tribes, 541-783-2219 / Tribal 
Administration of Programs: Terence O'Connor, General Manager, 541-783-2219 / Klamath 
Tribes Natural Resource Department: Elwood Miller Jr., Director, Natural Resource Department 
and Craig Bienz, Chief Biologist, 541-783-2095 / Culture and Heritage Department: Gordon 
Bettles, Director, Culture and Heritage Department, 541-783-2095. 

Agency Contact 

GregC. LaFrance, Chiloquin Subagency, BIA; Chiloquin, OR; Phone: 541-783-2189. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural: Unanticipated obligations, such as funerals or illnesses, may affect tribal meeting 
schedules. First Sucker Ceremony, typically held during the last weekend in March. Restoration 
Celebration, usually held during third weekend in August. 

Government: The General Council membership 18 years or older elects the Executive Committee to 
two year terms. The last general election was on March 13, 1995. Ten member Executive 
Committee is elected together for 2 year terms by the General Council. The Executive Committee 
also serves as General Council officers. General Council convenes quarterly and can overturn 
Executive Committee decisions. 



■: .. : : ... 



Executive Committee 

Membership for 1995-1997 terms. Jeff Mitchell. Chairman; Modesta Heminez, Vice-Chair; Barbara 
Kirk, Secretary; Jackie Galbreath. Treasurer; Executive Committee members: Nadine Hatcher. Orin 
Kirk, Joe Hobbs, Rosemary Treetop, Mary Gentry, Will Hatcher. 
Meets at least once a week, although the meetings have been averaging twice of week. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members, 18 years of age or older, meet at least once a year to address tribal 
business and help provide direction to the General Council. General Council meets quarterly. 

Tribal Committees 

Culture Committee; Culture and Heritage Committee; Water Committee; Housing; Fish and Wildlife; 
Klamath Indian Game Commission: Meets at least once a month. Committee membership is typically 
a mix of selected Executive Committee members and Tribal department staff. 

References 

Alatorre, Barbara, 1994: "Wocus is Dying" Klamath News November/December 1994, p. 9. 



E*\srsTtm Dkaft EIS/Appesihx 1-2/Pace 57 




Klamath Tribe of Oregon 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 



Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



l~~^3 Klamath Tribe 
Area of Interest 

/ ~^ y Major Rivers 

^ Major Roads 

/s ' State Borders 

s^ EIS Area Border 

"w Klamath Tribal Headquarters 





Klamath Tribe of Oregon 

Map 2. 

Ceded Lands 



Source: Dept. of Interior, Portland Area BIA jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



EZ=) Klamath Treaty 

SS53 former Klamath Reservation 

^™ Water 

/rsy ' Major Rivers 

^V- Major Roads 

S ">' State Borders 

A^ EIS Area Border 

w 1 Klamath Tribal Headquarters 




Kootenai Tribe 



n 



Tribes and Bands 

The Kootenai were composed of two groups: Upper and Lower. Like the more plains-like Upper 
Kootenai bands, the Lower bands relied predominantly on fisheries and other aquatic and 
terrestrial resources similar to other Columbia Basin groups. Two of the three bands of Lower 
Kootenai now reside in Canada. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) Treaty with the Flathead. Kootenai, and Upper Pend d'Oreilles, July 16, 1855. 
Treaty with the Flatheads, Kootenai, and Upper Pend d'Oreilles, 1855; Article 3: "The exclusive right of 
taking fish in all the streams running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said 
Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of 
the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing; together with the privilege of hunting, 
gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land." 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, and socio-economic well-being on their reservation.) Pyramid Lake Paiute 
Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973). Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d (9th Cir. 1981), and 
Northern Cheyenne Tribe u. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal 
agencies have trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect water quality/quantity, air 
quality, or property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre-contact: The Kootenai occupied a large (greater than 1 million acres) area of the Upper 
Columbia Basin in northern Idaho, northwest Montana and southeast British Columbia. Some 
Lower Kootenai of northern Idaho, living in the vicinity of the Canadian border near Bonner's Ferry 
and Creston, British Columbia did not move to the Flathead Reservation in Montana. A group of 
families near Bonner's Ferry were recognized by the U.S. Government in 1894. Primarily through 
the allotment process in 1890s. a small land base of 135 acres was established. 1972 reservation: 
2,683 acres; today's reservation: approximately 1300 acres. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Kootenai Tribal Council; P.O. Box 1269, Bonners Ferry, ID 83805; Phone: 208-267-3519; 
Fax: 208-267-2960. 

Tribal Population 

1995: 1 10 enrolled members. The size of the reservation population fluctuates as people move 
freely between Kootenai settlements in Idaho and British Columbia. 

Religions 

Christian denominations and Traditional beliefs. 

Languages 

English, and Kitunahan dialects. 

Governance 

The Tribe adopted a Constitution in 1947. The Tribe has proposed a revision of their Constitution, 
but has yet to be approved by the Secretary of the Department of Interior. In addition to the 
Constitution, the Tribe is regulated by a code of conduct. 



Pre-Treaty Economy 

Traditional fishing, hunting and gathering, etc. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Best Western Kootenai River Inn; Tribal Gaming Resort. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation interests) 

The Tribe operates a fish hatchery for Threatened and Endangered, White Sturgeon and cultural 
resource program.) 

Tribal Fisheries 

Kootenai River. 

Tribal Contact 

Preston Kinne, Environmental Project Coordinator: Kootenai Tribal Council; P.O. Box 1269, 
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805: Phone: 208-267-3519: Fax: 208-267-2960. 

Agency Contact 

Elaine Zieroth, District Ranger, Bonners Feny Road, Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Bonners 
Ferry, ID 83805: Phone: 208-267-2512. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural: 2nd week in June, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Pow Wow holiday, Bonners Ferry, Idaho. 

Government: Tribal Council meetings are held regularly; General Council meetings are held 
quarterly; District meetings are held monthly. Tribal Council members are elected from four 
reservation districts by the General Council. The Tribal Council is elected for four year terms. The 
last election for the entire Tribal Council was held in October 1995. The reservation is divided into 
four districts; three districts have two Tribal Council positions each, and the fourth district has one 
position. 

Tribal Council 

Velma Bahe, Chairperson; Bernadine Boy Chief, Vice-Chair; Ileen Wheaton, Secretary; Myuk, 
Treasurer; Council members: Dixie Abraham; Amy Trice; Diane David. Kootenai Tribal Council: 
Phone: 916-335-5421 or 800-305-5551. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members, 18 years of age or older, meet at least once a year to address tribal 
business and help provide direction to the General Council. General Council meets at least once a 
year in May and may convene special meetings as warranted by Tribal issues. 



" ....'...:..:.■"."....:.;.."■■ 




Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 



Displayed interest urea is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



V^-^- 



' — —J Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 
Area of Interest 

■■■ Water 

^^ Major Rivers 

-^ Major Roads 

'•*' State Borders 

/sy EIS Area Border 



, ■_ ■ . ■ 


»*fe r 


















Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

Map 2. 

Ceded Lands 



Source: Dept. of Interior, Portland Area BIA jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



fez 



, ft ^~ - f 



1 1 Flathead Treaty 

■^ Water 

/ ^ y Major Rivers 

^^ Major Roads 

/s ' State Borders 

■^^ EIS Area Border 






Atw.tmrx 1-2: Amwc/w Indlin Background frrojaunoiv- 



Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho 

Tribes and Bands 

Nez Perce Tribe and bands. 

Basis for Legal Status 

Treaty with the Nez Perce Tribe, June 1 1 , 1855: Nez Perce Treaty, June 9, 1863; Act, March 3, 1863; 
Treaty with Nez Perce Tribe, August 13, 1868: Agreement with Nez Perce, May 1. 1893; Proclamation, 
February 8, 1887; Proclamation, November 8, 1895; Act of Congress, February 6, 1909. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, socio-economic well-being on their reservation and reserved rights) Treaty 
with the Nez Perce of 1855, Article 3: "The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where 
running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right 
of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the Territory: and of 
erecting temporary buildings for curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and 
berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land." Treaty with the Nez 
Perce of 1863, Article 8: "The United States also agree to reserve all springs or fountains not 
adjacent to. or directly connected with, the streams or rivers within the lands hereby relinquished, 
and to keep back from settlement or entry so much of the surrounding land as may be necessary to 
prevent the said springs or fountains being enclosed; and. further, to preserve a perpetual right of 
way to and from the same, as watering places, for the use in common of both whites and Indians." 

Relevant Federal Court Decisions 

(Nez Perce as party to case) Oregon v. Green. Nance u. E.P.A. 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981) and 
Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal 
agencies have trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect the water quality/quantity, 
air quality, or property of Indian reservations. 

State Cases 

State v. Arthur, 261 P.2d 135, 74 Idaho 251; State v. McConuille. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: 13 million acres in central Idaho, northeastern Oregon, and southeastern Washington; 
June 9, 1855: Reservation established encompassing 7.7 million acres; 1858: Allotted 180,270 acres- 
2,170 acres reserved for church and cemetery, and 32,020 acres for a timberland reserve; June 9, 
1863: Relinquish reservation and re-establish one with 780,000 acres in western Idaho between 
Snake and Clearwater Rivers; May 1, 1893: Ceded and sold to U.S. Government all unallotted 
lands on the reservation with exception of "the boom"; today's reservation: 750,000 acres: 
approximately 90,000 acres owned by the Tribe. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Nez Perce Tribe; Beavergrade Road and Main. Lapwai. Idaho 83540; Phone: 208-843-2253: Office 

hours: M-F, 8:00am-4:00pm. 

Tribal Population 

Pre-treaty: 7,000 [est.]; 1995: 3,170 enrolled members. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Plateau Cultural Region. 

Religions 

Christian denominations, Seven Drums, and Indian Shaker. 






Languages 

English and Sahaptian: Nez Perce language dialects. 

Governance 

Rejected Indian Reorganization Act in 1935 by tribal referendum. Established 9 member Nez Perce 
Executive Council under a Constitution with By-laws in 1927; concentrated authority under a 
1948 Constitution, which was adopted in 1948 (revised in 1961). The tribe is self-governing. 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

Hunting, fishing, and gathering; trade from Great Plains areas westward down the Columbia River; 
horse breeding. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Tribal convenience stores: Nez Perce Express I and II; Nez Perce Forest Products Enterprises; Nez 
Perce Limestone Enterprises: Nez Perce Clearwater Casino. 

Tribal Private Sector 

Farming; ranching; fishing; Appaloosa horse breeding; arts and crafts; retail trade; and other 
commercial services; The Nez Perce Express; Fireworks & Tobacco Sales. 

Museum 

Nez Perce National Historical Park Visitor Center (11 miles east of Lewiston, Idaho); Franklin C. 
Walker, Park Superintendent; Highway 95. Spalding, Idaho 83551: Phone: 208-843-2261. 

Tribal Newspaper 

Tots Tatoken, P.O. Box 365, Lapwai, ID 83540; Phone: 208-843-7375. Published monthly. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Cultural Resources; Salmon Youth Corps.; Fisheries; Environmental Protection; Water Quality/ 
Quantity Restoration. 

Tribal Fisheries 

Clearwater Forks, Grande Ronde, Imnaha, Payette, Powder, Rapid, Salmon, Lower Snake, Lochsa 
Selway, North Fork Salmon, and Columbia Rivers. This is to be understood to include all those 
tributaries and water bodies originating on the reservation and fisheries in the tribes area of 
interest, and all the tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations. 

Tribal Contact 

Allen Pinkham; P.O. Box 365, Lapwai, Idaho 83504; Phone: 208-843-2253; Fax: 208-843-7371. 
DG- A.Pinkham:R0 1 F05A. 

Agency Contact 

Elliot Moffet, Superintendent, Northern Idaho Agency, BIA: P.O. Drawer 277. Lapwai, ID 83540-0277; 
Phone: 208-843-2300; Fax: 208:843-7142. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural There are a number of socio-cultural events (for example, annual basketball tournament, 
Root and Salmon Feasts, Pow Wow dances) and unanticipated events (funerals, memorials, illnesses) 
that may obligate extended families during the year that could affect meeting schedules. 
Government: The Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee (NPTEC) meets on the 2nd and 4th 
Tuesdays of every month. The NPTEC subcommittees meet during the two weeks prior to the 
general meetings. The General Council of tribal members elects three of the nine members eveiy 
year in the 1st full weekend in May. NPTEC elects its own officers each year after the General 
Council elections in May. 



T6):yMl3W :jrr ': ■ ' -■'"■""' " :: -rmsiyW- : W [ ' : 






Executive Committee 

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee. NPTEC: P.O. Box 305, Lapwai. ID 83540; Phone: 208-843- 
2253; Samuel N. Penney, Chairman; Wilfred A. Scott, Vice-Chairperson; Tonia Garcia, Secretary; 
Jaime A. Pinkham, Treasurer; Arthur Taylor. Jr., Assistant Secretary /Treasurer; Carla Higheagle. 
Chaplin; Members: Julie A. Davis, Delia Wheeler Cree. Del T. White. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members, 18 years of age or older, meet at least once a year to address tribal 
business and help provide direction to the General Council. The General Council meets two times 
annually to conduct elections and business. The Nez Perce constitution does not provide for 
special General Council meetings. The General Council elects its officers in September. 











Nez Perce Tribe 

Map 1. 
Area of Interest 



Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th I IUC boundaries. 



INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



1-B 



Nez Perce tribe 
Area of Interest 



ESS5 N e2 Perce Reservation 

/ ^ // Major Rivers 

^ Major Roads 

/n ' State Borders 

S^/ EIS Area Border 





Nez Perce Tribe 

Map 2. 

Ceded Lands 



Source: Dept. of Interior, Portland Area BIA Jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



Nez Perce Treaty 
KSS3 N e/ Perce Reservation 

/ ^ / Major Rivers 

^^ Major Roads 

/ '*■' State Borders 

^^ EIS Area Border 



-._ 




. — — * 


*!/ 






H~- ^~3 


LA 




/ 








L — 



Pit River Tribe of California 

Tribes and Bands 

Eleven autonomous bands: Ajumawi, Aporige, Astarawi, Atsugewi, Atwamsini, Hammawi, 
Hewisedawi, Illmawi, Itsatawi, Kosealekte, Madesi. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) 1987 Executive Order: The Pit River Tribe, as presently organized, received 
official federal designation in 1987. This most recent federal designation came about as a result of 
the consolidation of several Rancherias within Pit River traditional territory. Tribal lands 
consolidated include three formerly independent Rancherias in Shasta County: Montgomery Creek 
(72 acres); Big Bend (40 acres); Roaring Creek (80 acres); two in Modoc County: Likely, which is a 
1.3 acre cemetery, and Lookout (40 acres); two other parcels of land, including 7 
acres purchased with a HUD grant near the town of Burney on which a health clinic has been 
constructed; XL Ranch: a 9,254 acre site in Modoc County was restored to tribal jurisdiction in 1975. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, socio-economic well-being on their reservation.) Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. 
Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d (9th Cir. 1981), and Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal agencies have 
trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect water quality/ quantity, air quality, or 
property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre- 1855: greater than 3,000,000 acres. Today: XL Ranch Reservation: Approximately 10,000 acres. 
Total area is 100 square miles, including but not limited to the XL Ranch, Rancheria and Rancheries. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Pit River Tribe of California; P.O. Drawer 70. Burney, CA 96013; Phone: 916-335-5421; 
Fax:916-335-3140. 

Tribal Population 

1995: Approximately 1800 members. 

Religions 

Each band has its own religion. 

Languages 

English; Native languages: Ajumawi and Atsugewi. 

Governance 

The Pit River Tribal Constitution was approved by the Assistant Secretary of Interior on 
December 3, 1987. There are 1 1 autonomous bands that make up the Pit River Tribal Council. 
The term "autonomous" refers most particularly to each band's tribal community. Each band has 
a distinct cultural heritage. 

Band Heads 

Ajumawi Band: Andy James, P.O. Drawer 1570, Burney, CA 96013; Aporige Band: Anna Barnes, 
P.O. Box 361, Fall River Mills, CA 96101; Astarawi Band: Patricia Preston, P.O. Box 824, Alturas, 
CA 96101; Atsugewi Band: Beverly Winn, Rt. 2. Box 755, Hat Creek, CA: Atwamsini Band: Wally 
Preston, P.O. Box 1315, Alturas, CA 96101; HammawiBand: Susan Alvarez, P.O. Box 863, Alturas, 
CA 96101; Hewisedawi Band: No representation; IlmawiBand: Melvin Wolfin; Itsatawi Band: 
Vivian Martinez; Kosealekte Band: Delores DeGarmo, P.O. Box 1286, Alturas, CA 96101; Madesi 
Band: June Avelar, P.O. Box 52, Montgomery Creek, CA 96065. 



■.■....■.v...' 



Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Cultural Resources. 

Tribal Economy 

Pit River Indians in the four county area are affected greatly by the fluctuations of the area's 
economy, because most families do not live on the federal trust land of the Rancheries and other 
tribally owned lands. Most employment opportunities are seasonal in nature. The unemployment 
rate is traditionally high among tribal members often exceeding 60 percent. The major industry for 
this areas is lumber and wood products. Government is a large employer. Outdoor recreation is a 
significant industry as well as tourism. 

Tribal Contact 

Laurence D. Cantrell, Tribal Chairman; Phone: 916-335-5421. 

Agency Contact 

Dan Meza. Tribal Liaison; Modoc National Forest; 800 W. 12th, Alturas, CA 96101; 
Phone: 916-233-5811; Fax: 916-233-4886. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-caltural: Generally speaking, Tribal members often participate in sports events such as 
softball and basketball tournaments: Pit River annual softball and basketball tournament. 
Government Tribal elections are held annually in August. The Tribal Chairman is elected for a two 
year term and the other Tribal Council members are elected for a one year term. The last election 
for the Chairman was in August 1995. Elections are held in August. Tribal Council meetings held 
on the second Friday of the month. 

Tribal Council 

The Pit River Tribal Council; P.O. Drawer 70, Burney, CA 96013; Phone: 916-335-5421. 
Laurence D. Cantrell, Chairman; Sarah Harris, Vice-Chairman; Diane Taylor, Secretary; Gwen 
Wolfin, Treasurer; Steven Gemmil, Sergeant at Arms; Rosemarie Wilson, Recording Secretary. 






Quartz Valley Indian Community of 
the Quartz Valley Reservation of 
California 



Tribes and Bands 

Shasta and Karuk Tribes. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) In 1851 a treaty between the Indians in Scott Valley and the United States of 
America established a territory for the Indians. The Indians living in Scott Valley included Shasta. 
Karuk, Modoc and others. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, as amended (49 stat. 378) 
established the Quartz Valley Indian Community and a basis for the adoption of a tribal 
Consitution and By-Laws. The Quartz Valley Indian Community adopted a Constituion and By- 
Laws on June 15, 1939. The Tribe was terminated in 1948 as a part of the California Rancheria 
Act. Then, on August 3, 1983 in TilUe Hardwick v. U.S. (CA-79-1716-SW] a stipulated agreement 
was entered, the agreement reinstated the trust responsibility of the federal government and 
reinstated the Constitution and By-Laws and Corporate Charter of the reservation. The Quartz 
Valley Indian Reservation was a class member of Tillie Hardwick v. U.S.. in part, because four 
families were able to maintain ownership of original Quartz Valley Indian Reservation Land. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty and socio-economic well-being on their reservation.) Pyramid Lake Paiute 
Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981). and 
Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal 
agencies have trust obligation when their actions may adversely affect the water quality/quantity, 
air quality, or property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Original Homelands: 1 million acres. 1951: The Quartz Valley Indian Reservation was established 
under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and comprised 604 acres. The California 
Rancheria Act terminated the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation and disbursed Tribal land to Tribal 
members, thus the tribe had no land. In 1983, Tille Hardwick v. U.S. restored the federal trust 
relationship to the tribe, however, did not provide for the restoration of the tribal land. The Tribe 
remained landless until 1994, when the Tribe purchased 12 acres of former reservation land. In 
1995, the Tribe purchased an additional 130 acres of land within or contiguous to the original 
reservation. The reservation totals 142 acres of land. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Quartz Valley Indian Reservation; 1 1219 Highway 3, Suite J, Fort Jones, CA 96032: 
Phone: 916-468-5409/5907; Fax: 916-468-5908: Office Hours: M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm. 

Tribal Population 

Pre-treaty: 2,000 plus [est.]; 1906: 121, Shasta and Karuk; 1963: 36, Shasta and Karuk: Currently 
28 adults enrolled. Potentially eligible, approximately 250 adults. Children are enrolled under an 
adult member. 

Culture Affiliation 

Northwest Coast Cultural Region. 



:■;■'■' 



AWKIVWX 1-2; AwER/CrtJV Il'OWW RiCKfiWXW/;. ft 



v. ■■'?:: 



gf^;gfifr:^^ 



JReli^fions 

Traditional religions and other western faiths. 

Languages 

English, Karuk, and Shasta languages. 

Governance 

Self-governing under an approved Tribal Consititution. Governing body is the General Community 
Council, the General Community Council elects a Business Council and committees. 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

Hunting, fishing, gathering, and trade with other Tribes. QVIR traded with the Modoc Indians for 
Obsidian, with the Chiloquin Indians for Elk and Otter, with the Yurok Indians for dentilliun, and 
with the Hoopa and Yurok Indians for Fish. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Current: Tribal Arts & Crafts Gift Shop. Future: Tribal Forestry Department. 

Museum. 

No Tribal museums. A small museum is nearby in Fort Jones, California. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Co-operative agreement with the Forest Service for forest restoration. 

Tribal Fisheries 

Currently none. Planning for future fisheries program. 

Tribal Contact 

Edward Lee Sanderson Jr., Tribal Chairman; Phone: 916-468-5409/5907. 

Agency Contact 

Virgil Akins, Superintendent, BIA; Phone: 916-246-514; Fax: 916-246-5167; 
Barbara Holder, Forest Supervisor, Klamath National Forest. Phone: 916-842-6131; 
Jim Rock, Forest Archeologist and Tribal Liaison. Phone: 916-842-6131. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural: Some community gatherings. Cultural gathering throughout the year. 

Quartz Valley Business Council 

Elected by the General Council by secret ballot. Consists of Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, 
Treasurer and other officers as needed. Current council: Chairman Edward L. Sanderson Jr., 
Vice-Chairperson Peggy Bennett, Secretary Everett Super, and Treasurer Roy Lincoln. Council 
member. Patrick Case. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members, 18 years of age or older. Meets once a month on the second Saturday, 
and is the governing body of the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation. 

Tribal Committees 

Housing Committee. Constitution committee and other committees as needed.. 



liiSllliSa 




Quartz Valley Indian 

Community 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 

Displayed interest area Is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



I flfl l^^Ml^^J^^^O 



I— — 1 Quartz Valley Tribes 
Area ol interest 

■■ Water 

^ y Major Rivers 

^^ Major Roads 

/s ' State Borders 

S*S EIS Area Border 




; »» w-:W --m ::::;::;::>m ::: s': 

mmmmmmmiwi 






Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck 
Valley Reservation 

Tribes and Bands 

Western Shoshone, Northern Paiute, and Northern Shoshone/Bannock. 

Basis for Legal Status 

Executive Order of April 16, 1877 set aside the Duck Valley Reservation for several Western 
Shoshoni bands who traditionally lived along the Owyhee River of southeastern Oregon, 
southwestern Idaho, and the Humboldt River of northeastern Nevada. Later they were joined by 
Paiute from the lower Weiser country of Idaho and independent Northern Paiutes from Fort 
McDermitt, Camp Harney, and Quinn River areas and from the Owyhee region of southwestern 
Idaho, and both settled on the reservation to take up farming and ranching. The reservation was 
expanded on the north side by an Executive Order in 1886 to a half million acres to include a 
Northern Paiute group (Paddy Cap's Band), who arrived in 1884 released from the Yakama Reservation. 

The creation and subsequent expansion of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation relocated bands of 
Northern Paiute, Northern Shoshone and Bannock people. All available anthropological and 
historical literature indicates that the Northern Paiute and Northern Shoshone/Bannock groups, in 
varying degrees of admixture, were the primary aboriginal inhabitants of this region (ie. prior to the 
disturbances associated with EuroAmerican contact), with the Western Shoshone primarily 
inhabiting the Humboldt River drainage. The core subsistence areas of the the Northern Paiute/ 
Northern Shoshone-Bannock and the Western Shoshone were separated by the high ground 
dividing the Snake and Humboldt river drainage. Formerly each group travelled throughout 
different, yet overlapping regions. Most if not all enrolled tribal members have ancestors in more 
than one of the aboriginal groups, and many individuals are multilingual. Individuals therefore, 
normally maintained interests in the territories of more than one group. The aboriginal Northern 
Paiute territory includes portions of southwestern Idaho, eastern Oregon, and northwestern 
Nevada. Nevertheless, the aboriginal Northern Shoshone-Bannock territory includes mainly 
southern Idaho; the aboriginal Western Shoshone territory includes mainly northern Nevada. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, socio-economic well-being on their reservation) Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. 
Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d (9th Cir. 1981), and Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal agencies have 
trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect water quality/quantity, air quality, or 
property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: Unknown. The tribes were originally located on three reservations: Walker River, 
Pyramid Lake, and Malheur; April 16, 1877: Executive Order Reservation: 150,000 acres [est.]; 
1886: Increased the reservation side on Idaho side due to the arrival of Paddy Cap's band. 
Reservation: 294,242 acres between Idaho and Nevada state lines and adjacent to Humboldt 
National Forest. All reservation lands are tribal properties and contiguous in a square block. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes; P.O. Box219, Owyhee. NV 89832; Phone: 702-757-3211; Fax: 702-757-2219. 

Tribal Population 

Pre-European: 500: Late 1800s: 1000s: 1992: 1700. 



. ■ . ■■■■■■■■ ■'" '" ' ....". . .'..'.. .:.:■■■ 

' . ' ' '■" '..:" . • "'...'..' '■■■■■■■ - ' .■..■■■.■..■:.=,....:.::::■:■ ". :'..':-.-.' . ..■.■■■.,,. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Great Basin Language: Dialects of Paiute, Shoshonean. and English. 

Religions 

Traditional beliefs and Christian denominations. 

Governance 

The Tribe adopted a Constitution in 1936 in conformance with the Indian Reorganization Act 1934. 
The Tribe is one of the original 17 tribes that sought self-governance. 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

Hunting, fishing, and harvesting grass and seed. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Rec Hall Cafe; The principal sources of revenue are farming and ranching. Other business 
establishments include a motel, general store, laundromat, and service station. The main source 
of income is the selling of permits to anglers at the two reservoirs. Business leases, land leases, 
and grazing permits also provide income to the tribe. 

Tribal Programs (ojf-reservation involvement) 

Department of Natural Resources; Heritage Preservation (cultural resources). 

Tribal Contact 

Herman Atkins, Administrator; Phone: 702-757-3211. Terry Gibson, Director; Phone: 702-757-3211. 

Agency Contact 

William Reed, Heritage Program Leader; Boise National Forest; 1750 Front St., Boise, ID 83702; 
Phone: 208-364-4158. DG-W.Reed:R04F02A. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural: September: Indian Day Pow Wow, Owyhee, Nevada; Veteran's Day, Veteran's Day 
Pow Wow, Owyhee, Nevada; 4th of July, Annual 4th of July Rode, Owyhee, Nevada. 

Government: Elections are held every year in April. Two council members are elected each year for 
three year terms. Tribal Council meets once a month or as needed. 

Business Council 

James Pavia, Chairman; Dennis Smith, Vice-Chair: Business Council members: Louise George, 
Helen Hernadez, David Jones, Reginald Soap, Eloy Thatcher, and Elwood Thomas. Phone: 702- 
757-32 1 1 ; Fax: 702-757-22 19. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members, 18 years of age or older, meet at least once a year to address tribal 
business and help provide direction to the General Council. General Council meets at least once a 
year and may have special meetings as warranted by tribal issues. 




Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

(Duck Valley Reservation) 

Map 1. 

Area of Interest 

Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 
Area of Interest 

ESS3 Duck Valley Reservation 

/ ^ s/ " Major Rivers 

^ Major Roads 

/ s ' State Borders 

/^S EIS Area Border 




Spok>\kf. Tribs 



The Spokane Tribe of the Spokane 
Reservation, Washington 

Tribes and Bands 

Upper Spokane (Snxwemi'ne: people of the steelhead trout place); Middle Spokane (Sqasi'lni: fishers, 
after a village name); Lower Spokane (Sineka'lt: rapids, after a village name) and Chewelah groups. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) Executive Order of January 18, 1881; Agreement, March 18, 1887; 
Act, June 20, 1940. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, socio-economic well-being on their reservation) Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. 
Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973), Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981), and Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe u. Hodel, 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal agencies have 
a trust obligation when their actions may adversely affect the water quality/ quantity, air quality, or 
property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Pre-treaty: 153,600, unallotted acres; today: 137,002 total acres: (102,441 acres owned by Tribe. 
34,522 acres allotted, 38 acres government owned); 1881: Spokane Indian Reservation established 
in northeast Washington by Executive Order; 1887: The Spokane gave up title to all land outside of 
the reservation in Idaho and Washington Territories and agreed to move to the Coeur d'Alene 
Reservation; 1940: Land reclamation for construction of Grand Coulee Dam. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Spokane Tribe, The Alex Sherwood Memorial Center: P.O. Box 100. Wellpinit. WA 99040; 
Phone: 509-258-4581; Fax: 509-258-9243; Office Hours: M-F, 7:30am-4:00pm. 

Tribal Population 

Pre-treaty: 725; 1972: 58; 1995: 2,121. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Northern Plateau: Most closely affiliated with the Kalispel, Pend d'Oreilles, Sematuse, and 
Flathead/Salish. 

Religions 

Christian denominations, primarily Catholic. 

Languages 

English and Interior Salish. 

Governance 

A Constitution was approved in May 1951, establishing a Business Council of three elected tribal 
councilmen. On August 10, 1972, an amendment established a five member Business Council. 
Council members are elected to 3 year, 2 year, and 1 year terms. The tribe is self governing. 

Pre-Treaty Economy 

Fishing, hunting, and gathering was based on a subsistence economy with established local and 
regional trade networks. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Spokane Indian Reservation Timber Enterprise: Southwest Region Recreational Resort Project; 
Tribal Trading Post; Spokane Tribal Fish Hatchery; Spokane Tribal Wood Products; McCoy's 
Marina; Eagle Feather Sawmill; Spokane Tribal Gaming Commission; Two Rivers Casino. 



: :-■ ' '• • '.• ' ' .... . . ...'.' ; ".\". 






Tribal Private Sector 

Lil Chiefs Casino Ford; Double Eagle Casino. 

Museum 

A museum is planned at the Pow Wow grounds off the Sherwood Loop Road on the reservation. It 
will be called the Spokane Tribe Cultural Learning Center. 

Tribal Newspaper 

The Rawhide Press; P.O. Box 100. Wellpinit, WA 99040; Phone: 509-258-775. Published monthly 
by the Tribe and printed by Garland Press in Spokane. Washington. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

Spokane Tribal Fish Hatchery and cultural resources program. 

Special Environmental Designations 

Spokane reservation was designated Class 1 airshed at the request of the tribe, approved and 
regulated by EPA. 

Tribal Fisheries 

Spokane, Little Spokane, and Columbia Rivers; Chamokane Creek. 

Tribal Contact 

Mary Verner, Natural Resource Coordinator; Phone: 509-258-9042: Fax: 509-258-9243. 

Agency Contact 

Bob Gilrein, Acting Superintendent of Spokane Agency, BIA; P.O. Box 389, Wellpinit, WA 
99040-0389; Phone: 509-258-4561: Fax: 509-258-7542. 

Significant Events and Dates 

Socio-cultural: August 25-27. 1995, 6th Annual Spokane Falls Northwest Indian Encampment and 
Pow Wow; August 3 1 -September 4: Spokane Indian Days Pow Wow are examples of social events 
well attended by the tribe. These and other unanticipated events such as funerals, illnesses, and 
memorials may affect tribal meeting schedules especially if they involve extended family obligations. 
Government: Elections took place June 1, 1996. Elected members were sworn in on June 30th. 
Normally, Council reorganization would take place within 10 days after an election unless 
interrupted by the 4th of July celebrations as in 1995. The Business Council's five members are 
elected to 3 year terms by the General Council. General Council members are elected for 2 year terms. 

Business Council 

Bruce Wynne, Chairman; John Keiffer, Vice-Chairman; David Wynecoop, Secretary; Council 
members: Alfred Peone: Jim Sijohn. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members, 18 years of age or older, meet at least once a year to address tribal 
business and help provide direction to the General Council. The General Council meets quarterly, 
but may have special sessions held periodically throughout the year to address tribal business. 
The General Council can override the Business Council decisions. 

Committees, Boards and Commissions 

Education; Housing; Tribal Employment Rights Office: Tribal Finance; Senior Citizen; SIRTP 
Enterprise: Gaming Enterprise/bingo; Tribal Road Construction; Credit; Election; Wildfire; IRMP 
Steering; Indian Child Welfare. 




Spokane Tribe 

Map 1. 
Area of Interest 



t u-^ -j 1 



Displayed interest area is subject to consultation with tribes. 
Shaded interest area follows 4th HUC boundaries. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



Spokane Tribe 
Area of Interest 

£SSS Spokane Reservation 

^™ Water 

/ * v/ Major Rivers 

S^ Major Roads 

f*-' State Borders 

/sy EIS Area Border 






__— — — ~- 


§1 M 


h 








^T_- 




Spokane Tribe 

Map 2. 
Court of Claims 



Source: Dept. of Interior, Portland Area BIA jurisdiction, 
Indian Treaty Boundary Map, April, 1983. 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



Spokane Tribe 
Court of Claims 



SSS3 Spokane Reservation 
■■ Water 
/X/ Major Rivers 
A/ Major Roads 
'*■' State Borders 
/s ^ EIS Area Border 




■"^'.^■:-;.:-: : :r ; :'7""." : -. ; v. " .■ '. . .;....;.... •.;"... ■.:'.,,.. 



-:' ~ : ^ : ,. ■■ ■ ■' ■■ ; ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ : " S^'M.M- 



Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada 

Tribes and Bands 

The Paiute Tribe has long lived throughout much of what is now the state of Nevada. 

Basis for Legal Status 

(inherent sovereignty) The Summit Lake Reservation was created on the old Camp McGarry Military 
Reserve in 1913. 

Basis for Off-Reservation Interests/Rights 

(inherent sovereignty, socio-economic well-being on their reservation) Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. 
Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973). Nance v. E.P.A. 645 F.2d (9th Cir. 1981), and Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe v. Model 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985) affirm that federal agencies have 
trust obligations when their actions may adversely affect water quality and quantity, air quality, or 
property of Indian reservations. 

Land Base 

Today's reservation: Tribally owned lands cover 10,506 acres in Humboldt County at Summit Lake. 

Tribal Headquarters 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe; P.O. Box 1958, Winnemucca, NV 89445; Phone: 702-623-5151; 
Fax: 702-623-0558. 

Tribal Population 

1992: 16 on reservation. Total tribal membership was 1 12. 

Governance 

The Tribe adopted the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. They operate through an Article of 
Incorporation. Tribal Council members are elected to a three year term. The last election was held 
in 1994. 

Tribal Enterprises 

Fishing revenues, land leases, and grazing permits. 

Tribal Programs (off-reservation involvement) 

None. 

Tribal Contact 

Robert Sam, Chairman; Phone: 702-623-5151 

Agency Contact 

Scott W. Bell, District Ranger; Santa Rosa Road, Winnemucca, NV 89445; Phone: 702-623-5025. 

Tribal Council 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe; 655 Anderson Street, Winnemucca, NV 89445; Phone: 702-623-5151. 
Robert Sam, Chairman; Thomas Cowan, Vice-Chairman; Robyn Burdette, Secretary /Treasurer; 
Council members: Jerry Barlese; William Cowan. Tribal Council meetings held on the 3rd 
Saturday of the month. 

General Council 

Enrolled tribal members. 18 years of age or older, meet at least once a year to address tribal 
business and help provide direction to the General Council. General Council meets twice a year in 
the months of May and October. 



Chronology of Legal Status of 

Eutr®dueM,mii 

This paper shows the evolution of the legal status and involvement of American Indian Tribes in 
the planning and decision making process for resource decisions on lands administered by the 
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. It lists the appropriate laws, executive orders 
and other key legal concepts that provide the present national policy and direction. Selected 
Treaties and Agreements that recognize off- reservation rights and interests of the affected ICBEMP 
tribes are also included. (See also the Introduction to the General Information Sheet section in the 
beginning of this Appendix.) 

1500s. Spain's Francisco de Victoria advised that since "Indians" had title or right to the land, 
their consent was required before lands could be taken. De Victoria's position was widely accepted 
by 16th, 17th, and 18th century authorities on international law. 

Pre-Constitutional. Prior to the U.S. Constitution, other countries, except England, signed treaties 
with Indian nations. The British Crown issued doctrines describing the relationship it held with Indian 
nations as a political relationship. The King of England further defined areas west of the Appalachians 
as Indian territory. England recognized Indian tribes as sovereign nations. 

The Courts have established that discovery gave European colonial powers fee simple ownership of 
the domain they discovered, subject to the Indians' right of occupancy and use or "Indian title." 
This fee title passed to the United States on independence subject to treaty rights or conditions 
reserved by or for the Indians and by subsequent actions by Congress or the Executive to abrogate 
or condition treaties, laws, and agreements. 

Aboriginal Rights. Aboriginal rights were based on aboriginal title, original title, or Indian title 
which is the possessory right to occupy and use the area of land that they had traditionally used. 
Such rights or title could be extinguished by Congress at will through treaty or other actions. 
Individual aboriginal rights were based on continuous actual possession by occupancy, inclosure, 
or other actions establishing a right to the land to the exclusion of adverse claimants. As to 
National Forest lands, such possession must predate the establishment of the National Forest. 

1787 - Northwest Ordinance. Once lands northwest of the Ohio River were opened for 
settlement, the Continental Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance (1 Stat 51), in part to have 
at hand, some representation of law and order as settlers encountered Indian nations. It gave 
recognition of sovereignty to tribal groups and stipulated that only the Federal Government could 
negotiate treaties for cession of lands. 

1789 - U.S. Constitution. Acknowledged sovereign rights of Indian nations. Although Indians 
are specifically mentioned three times in the Constitution, the main source of federal authority over 
Indians is the Commerce Clause. Under it, Congress is authorized to "regulate commerce with 
foreign Nations, and among the States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Commerce Clause, Treaty 
Clause, and Supremacy Clause, have been determined by the courts to be the primary basis for the 
national government's exclusive authority to provide for the management of Indian matters. The 
specific Clauses pertaining to Indians follow: 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: Power under Commerce Clause was limited to recognized tribes. 
Congress "shall have the power to regulate Commerce with . . . the Indian Tribes." 

Article 1 and 14th Amendment: Indians were not to be taxed. 

'.'.:'.. .:■.:•■ Ha;" 1 — :i:\m ■ ■ ■ . . . ■ ~ ■.,■■■,■■■ . 

' [■■'\u:j-:y::;:;y~.:. ' : ; : .' ■ '. ' ' ■ .■:./■. ' : :• •' :: : : ■;■■.■■■ -"y: : ■■ ■ '■" V,:,:;:.-:. . :,...::,'. : 



Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2. The Treaty Clause: "... the president shall have the power to make 
treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur . . ." This was the principal foundation 
for federal power over Indians. 

Article 1, Section 8 Clauses 1, 11, 12, 15-17: At least during the first century of U.S. national 
existence, national defense powers of the Constitution provided for administration of Indian affairs. 
During this period Indian affairs were more of a military and foreign policy matter than a matter to 
be handled under domestic or municipal laws. 

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, The Property Clause: The Property Clause states: "The Congress shall 
have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or 
Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as 
to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State." The Property Clause has 
been considered as an additional source of authority over Indian affairs with power over U.S. 
property exclusively committed to Congress. Under this Clause, executive order reservations have 
been sustained on the basis of the longstanding acquiescence of Congress in this matter. An 
historical argument has been made that technically, since lands held under "Indian title" were also 
"property of the U.S.," they were subject to the Property Clause. Public lands owned by the U.S. 
are administered by the federal agencies under the Property Clause for public purposes. These federal 
lands are distinct from lands held by the U.S. in trust for the benefit of the Native American Indians. 

Article 6, Clause 2: "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in 
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or shall be made, under the Authority of the Unites 
States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land : and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, 
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." This clause 
confirmed that states of the union have no jurisdiction over Indian nations or their treaties. 

Laws and Treaties 

Non-Intercourse Act of 1790. Gave the Federal Government authority over Indian matters and 
provided a foundation for U.S. Indian policy. 

1803 ~ Treaty with France for Louisiana Purchase. Ceded the Mississippi drainage to the U.S. 
bringing the territory and its inhabitants under U.S. rule and protection. 

1814 ~ Treaty of Peace and Amity. Commonly referred to as the Treaty of Ghent, this treaty 
was between the United States and Great Britain. A provision of the treaty, in response to Great 
Britain's pressure to have rights restored to its allies during the War of 1812, pledges the United 
States government to restore to such American Indian Nations all the possessions, rights and 
privileges that they enjoyed or were entitled to before the war. In addition, both treaty nations 
transferred the role of guardian to all Indian Nations while acknowledging all aboriginal rights to 
use of land, sea and air in the New World. The treaty also excluded non-Indians from Indian 
territories until and unless the United States had secured the land from the Indians by valid, just 
and humane treaties. In sum, Great Britain served its duty as a guardian of American Indian 
Nations it was responsible to by securing a promise from the United States to assume the same 
guardian/protective relationship. 

1823-1831; Marshall Trilogy 

1) Discovery Doctrine stated that only the Federal Government has preemptive right to procure 
Indian land. 

2) Trust Responsibility of the Federal Government meant that Indian tribes as sovereign, domestic 
dependent nations rely on the US government for protection of their interests and have no power to 
make treaties with foreign nations. 

3) Supremacy Clause stated that treaties take precedence over state laws. 



1830 ~ Indian Removal Act, (4 Stat. 411: 25 U.S.C. S 174). Enabled the President to negotiate 
with tribes east of the Mississippi. The act formally established the removal policy of exchanging 
federal lands west of the Mississippi for lands held by Indian Tribes in the east. The act required 
the exchanges be voluntary, payment be made to individuals for relinquished property 
improvements and guarantees made for suitable new homes. 

1830 ~ Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. Dissolved tribal territory and assimilated Indian peoples 
into U.S. society. 

1831 ~ Government -Tribal Relationship. Chief Justice John Marshall observed in Cherokee 
Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 pet.) 71 1 (1831). "the condition of the Indians in relation to the United 
States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence . . . The relation of the Indians to 
the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions that exist no where else." The 
Federal/tribal relationship is based upon broad but not unlimited federal constitutional power over 
Indian affairs, often described as "plenary." The relationship is also distinguished by special trust 
obligations requiring the United States (the President) to adhere to fiduciary standards in its 
dealings with Indians. The inherent tension between broad federal authority and special federal 
trust obligations has been instrumental in developing a unique body of law, generally referred to as 
Indian Law. 

1834 ~ Indian Trade and Intercourse Act. Established treaty-making policy and the reservation 
system under the assertion that land and other property would not be taken from Indians without 
their consent. The Constitution gave Congress expressed power over Indiana tribes and provided a 
new definition of Indian country by recognizing American Indian "title" throughout most of the U.S. 
west of the Mississippi River. Gave the Federal Government authority over Indian matters and 
provided a foundation for U.S. Indian policy. 

1846 ~ Treaty with Great Britain. Ceded Northwest Territory to the United States and brought 
its inhabitants under U.S. rule and protection. 

1848 ~ Organic Act. Created the Oregon Territory. Extended the Northwest Ordinance's 
confirmation of Indian title to land in the new U.S. territory and recognized the treaty process, 
stating that lands not expressly ceded by ratified treaty constituted Indian country. This act also 
established the superintendent of Indian affairs position. 

1848 ~ Treaty with Mexico. Ceded the southwest territory (including the homeland of the 
Shoshone tribe) who's American Indian nations were recognized by the United States as under the 
rule and protection of the Mexican government prior to the 1848. The treaty legally permitted the 
US government to protect this region and its residents from European intervention. 

1850 ~ Act of June 5. Created a Treaty Commission and extended the Indian Trade and 
Intercourse Act to the Oregon Territory. 

1850 ~ Oregon Donation Act. Contradicted the Act of June 5, 1850. Ultimately provided rights 
to land totaling 2.8 million acres to new settlers of the territory, beginning prior to the ratification 
of any treaties of land cession in the Pacific Northwest. 

1853 ~ Act of March 2. Created the Washington Territory from part of the Oregon Territory, which 
extended the Donation Act and encouraged settlers to dispossess long established Indian communities. 

1855 - June 9 Treaty with Yakama, (12 Stat. 951 et seq) The treaty applies to 14 bands and 
tribes now formally located on the Yakama and Colville Indian Reservations. Ratified and 
proclaimed in 1859. Treaty Article 3 in part states, "The exclusive right of taking fish in all the 
streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said 
confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and 
accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary 



.'.'..".'.".'.■..'.'.'.".".".'.'"'""""'■.■■■■■■■■.■■■..■■■■.■■..... 



wiw&MtZti&A 



buildings for curing them; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and 
pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land." 

1855 ~ June 9 Treaty with Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla, (12 Stat. 945 et seq). Ratified 
and proclaimed in 1859. Treaty Article 1 states in part, "That the exclusive right of taking fish in 
the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians, and 
at all other usual and accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United States, and of 
erecting suitable buildings for curing the same: the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and 
pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands in common with citizens, is also secured to them." 

1855 ~ June 11 Treaty with Nez Perce, (12 Stat. 957). The treaty was ratified and proclaimed 
by Congress in 1859. Article 3 in part states, "The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams 
where running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians: as also the 
right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the territory: 
and of erecting temporary buildings-for curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering 
roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land." 

1855 ~ June 25 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, (14 Stat. 751). The treaty was 
ratified and proclaimed in 1867. Treaty Article 1 in part states, "That the exclusive right of taking 
fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians; 
and at all usual and accustomed stations, in common with citizens of the United States, and of erecting 
suitable houses for curing the same; also the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and 
pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands, in common with citizens, is secured to them." 

1855 ~ July 16 Treaty with the Flatheads, Kootenais, and Upper Pend d'Oreilles, (12 Stat. 975). 

Ratified and proclaimed by Congress in 1859. Treaty Article 3 reads in part, "The exclusive right of 
taking fish in all the streams running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to 
said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with 
citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing; together with the privilege 
of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses an cattle upon open and 
unclaimed land." 

1863 ~ Treaty with the Nez Perce, (14 Stat. 647). This treaty supplemented and in part 
amended the treaty of 1855 between the Nez Perce Tribe and the US government. Ratified and 
proclaimed in 1867. It pertains to those lands reserved for " use and occupation" of the tribe in the 
Nez Perce Treaty of 1855, which were in turn relinquished by the tribe to the Federal government 
through this 1863 treaty. Treaty Article 8. .. "The United States also agree to reserve all springs or 
fountains not adjacent to, or directly connected with, the streams or rivers within the lands hereby 
relinquished, and to keep back from settlement or entry so much of the surrounding land as may 
be necessary to prevent the said springs or fountains being enclosed; and, further, to preserve a 
perpetual right of way to and from the same, as watering places, for the use in common of both 
whites and Indians." 

1864 - October 14 Treaty with the Klamaths, Moadocs, and Yahooskin Band of Snakes, (10 
Stat. 707 et seq). In Article 1 of the treaty it states, "The exclusive right of taking fish in the 
streams and lakes, included in said reservation and of gathering edible roots, seeds, and berries 
with its limits, is hereby secured to the Indians." Federal recognition and the tribes' reservation 
were terminated in 1961. The courts determined that the rights to fish, hunt, and gather were not 
extinguished when the treaty and tribes were terminated." The reservation in large part became 
the eastern portion of the Winema National Forest, where reserved treaty rights continue to be 
exercised. Federal recognition of the tribes was restored in 1986. 

1868 ~ Treaty with the Eastern Band of Shoshoni and Bannock, July 3, 1868 (15 Stat. 673). The 

treaty was ratified and proclaimed by congress in 1869. Treaty Article 4 ". . . but they shall have the 
right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, and 
so long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts." 






1868 - Treaty with the Nez Perces, (15 Stat. 693). This treaty in part amended the Nez Perces 
treaty of 1863. This treaty was ratified and proclaimed by Congress in 1869. It pertains to those 
lands set apart for the exclusive use and benefit of the Nez Perces Tribe, which were ceded to the 
US government thereby diminishing the size of their reservation. Treaty Article 1 reads in part, "... 
and it is further agreed that those now residing outside of the boundaries of the reservation and 
who may continue to so reside shall be protected by the military authorities in their rights upon 
the allotments occupied by them, and also in the privilage of grazing their animals upon 
surrounding unoccupied lands." 

1871 ~ Appropriation Act of May 3, 1871, (16 Stat.544. 566 and 25 U.S.C. S 71). The 

Appropriation Act's rider effectively ended the treaty era by withdrawing congressional 
appropriation funds to support the treaty making process. Subsequent tribal land cessions were 
accomplished by Agreements negotiated with tribes and approved by Congress. 

1885 ~ Major Crimes Act. The act extended the criminal jurisdiction to Indian country. 

1887 ~ General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), as amended. Led to dramatic reductions and 
elimination of some reservations. Provided for the allotment of lands to Indians on various 
reservations and public domain and extended the protection of laws of the United States and 
Territories over Indians. This was an attempt at assimilation by the cessation of Indian tribal 
holdings and relations: Indians were to be treated as individuals by dividing of lands to establish 
homes, by developing their lands, and becoming a part of American society. The Act also made the 
offer of U.S. citizenship to any individual applying for an allotment. Resulted in transfer of over 80 
million acres of Indian lands into private ownership. The act was amended in 1910. In its section 
3 1 of the amendment, it provided for lands to be allotted to American Indians found occupying, 
living on, or having improvements on National Forest land. 

1891 ~ Agreement of 1891, Article 6. An Agreement between the Federal government and the 
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation recognized tribal reserved right to water power and 
sources belonging to or connected with Indian allotments. Also, " ...the right to hunt and fish in 
common with all other persons on lands not allotted to said Indians shall not be taken away or 
otherwise abridged." 

1892 ~ Intercourse Act of 1892. The act prohibited intrusions by non-Indians on Indian lands. 

1897 ~ Organic Administrative Act of June 4, (30 Stat. 11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 473 et seq). 

Secured "unoccupied" federal land for management by the Forest Service. This Act directed that 
National Forests shall be established only to improve and protect the forest therein, or for the 
purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of 
timber for use and necessities of the citizens of the U.S. Also the Secretary of Agriculture was 
elected to make rules and establish such service as will assure the objects of the reservation, 
namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and preserve the forest thereon from destruction. 

1898 ~ Agreement of February 5, 1898. Ratified July, 1900, this Agreement between the US 
government and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation ceded lands once apart of 
their reservation as provided by the 1868 Treaty at Fort Bridger. Article 4 states, "As long as any 
of the lands ceded, granted, and relinquished under this treaty remain apart of the public domain, 
Indians belonging to the above-mentioned tribes, and living on the reduced reservation, shall have 
the right, without charge therefore, to cut timber for their own use, but not for sale, and to pasture 
their livestock on said public lands, and to hunt thereon and to fish in the streams thereof. Article 8 
states, "The water from streams... which is necessary for irrigating on land actually cultivated and 
in use shall be reserved for the Indians now using the same, so long as said Indians remain where 
they now live." 

1906 ~ Antiquities Act of 1906, (34 Stat. 225 :P.L.59- 209) as amended. Provided for the 
preservation and protection of federal land historic and archeological sites and artifacts. It was the 
precursor to the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. 



:: : :: : - ::: : ft:::::: S.::: : - : ^:': 



::::.:::::; ::: ; ::: 



1908 ~ Winters Doctrine. Indian water rights defined by Federal law and water regulations must 
be sufficient to meet the purposes of the reservation. The doctrine also stated that any ambiguity 
in interpretation of treaties must be resolved in the favor of the tribes. 

1910 ~ Buy Indian Act, (36 Stat. 861; 25 U.S.C. 47: and C.431, section 23). Authorizes the 
Secretaiy of Interior to contract directly for employment of Indian labor and purchase products of 
Indian Industry. Indian owned businesses must be certified by the USDI Bureau of Indian affairs 
before they can compete with other Indian enterprises for Interior Department contracts. (The 
Competition in Contracting Act requires competition between like businesses.) If no Indian businesses 
are qualified for a contracting bid, the application process is opened to non-Indian enterprises. 

1910 ~ Indian Allotments Act of June 25, (36 Stat. 855; 25 U.S.C.337). Authorized the 
Secretary of Interior to establish allotments within the national forests in conformance with the 
general allotment laws for any Indian person occupying, living on, or having improvements on 
land included within a national forest and not able to acquire an allotment by other usual allotment 
authorities. Grazing and agricultural uses of such land parcels were emphasized in the act. 

1911 ~ The Weeks Law, (36 Stat. 961; P.L.61-435). Secured public lands at the consent of 
States for management by the Forest Service. Authorized and directed the Secretary of Agriculture 
to acquire forested, cut over, and denuded lands within watersheds of navigable streams that were 
necessary for the regulation of the flow of navigable streams or for timber production. Under this 
Act the lands were permanently reserved, held, and administered as National Forests. 

1918 ~ Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, (40 Stat. 755; P.L. 65-186, as ammended 16 
U.S.C 703), Implemented the Migratory Bird Treaty of August 16. 1916 (39 Stat. 1702, T.S. No. 
628; 16 U.S.C. S 703 et seq) between the US government and Great Britain. The implications of 
this act concerning American Indian acquisition of bird parts for traditional use has been addressed 
in a some federal court cases, e.g. Supreme Court case Andrus v. Allard 444 U.S. 51 (1979). 

1924 ~ Indian Citizen Act. Granted U.S. citizenship and voting privileges to Indian peoples. 

1934 ~ Indian Reorganization Act, (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq). Encouraged tribes to organize 
themselves as governments and receive formal recognition from the Federal Government. Tribes 
could form corporations for their own economic development. Separate allotments were ended and 
the Secretary of Interior was given authority to acquire lands for Indians, inside or outside of 
reservations. The law is often referred to as IRA. 

1937 « Bankhead-Jones Act, (50 Stat. 522; P.L 72-210). Authorized and directed the Secretaiy 
of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization, correct maladjustments in 
land use to control soil erosion, reforestation, preserve natural resources, protect fish and wildlife. 
develop and protect recreation facilities, mitigate floods, conserve surface and subsurface moisture, 
protect watersheds of navigable streams, and protect public lands and public health and welfare. 

1940 ~ Eagle Protection Act, (45 Stat. 1222; P.L. 70-770, as ammended 76 Stat. 1246, 86 
Stat. 1064). Provided for the protection of eagles and made it unlawful to take, possess, sell, 
purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, transport, export or import such birds 
or bird parts. The act was ammended in 1962. The implications of this act concerning American 
Indian acquisition of bird parts for traditional use has been addressed in a some federal court 
cases, e.g. Supreme Court case Andrus v. Allard 444 U.S. 51 (1979). 

1944 ~ Sustained Yield Forest Management Act, (58 Stat. 132; P.L. 78-273). Provided 
authority to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretaiy of Interior to establish cooperative 
sustained units with private and other federal agencies in order to provide for a continuous and 
ample supply of forest products and to secure the benefits of forest in maintenance of water 
supply, regulation of stream flow, prevention of soil erosion, amelioration of climate, and 
preservation of wildlife. Under Section 7. trust or restricted Indian land, whether tribal or allotted, 
could be included in such units with the consent of the Indians concerned. 



■ - ■'"'■''-' '■■■■.■■ ' ■:'."■'"■ ' ■■■■■'■."/■■■■ -■' ; '~ V - ;;;V .V-^^ :.......... ' .. 

1946 ~ Indian Claims Commission Act. The Indian Claims Commission (ICC) was established in 
1946 to resolve (1) claims in law or equity arising under the Constitution, laws, treaties of the 
United States, and executive orders of the President; (2) all other claims in law or equity, including 
torts; (3) claims which would result if treaties, contracts, and agreements between claimant and 
the United States were revised because of fraud, duress, unconscionable consideration, mutual or 
unilateral mistake, whether of law or fact; (4) claims arising from the taking by the United States, 
whether as the result of a treaty of cessation or otherwise, without payment of compensation 
agreed to by the claimant; (5) claims based upon fair and honorable dealings that are not 
recognized by any existing rule of law or equity. 

A majority of the claims filed were land cases centered on the issue of whether adequate or any 
compensation had been paid when the Indians ceded territory to the United States or were forcibly 
removed. The rest of the claims were for government accountability, under the trust relationship, 
for mishandling, mismanagement, and misfeasance of tribal funds, for the most part directed at 
the Secretary of the Interior. Payment of compensation for land claims approved by the ICC 
extinguished aboriginal or Indian title to such lands. Rights and interest reserved by or for the 
Indians by treaty were not affected unless specifically identified in the ICC decision. 

1952 ~ McCarran Amendment Act of July 10, (66 Stat. 549 ; 43 U.S.C. S 666). The act waives 
the sovereign immunity of the United States by permitting it to join in suits involving water rights 
of a river system or other [water] sources where the US government appears to be the owner or in 
the process of acquiring water rights. An important policy of the McCarran Amendment is to avoid 
piecemeal adjudication of water rights in a river system. The amendment has been interpreted in 
court to apply to both state and federal court case interests and encompass water rights, which the 
United States holds in trust for Indians and Tribes 

1953 ~ House Concurrent Resolution No. 108 of 1953. The resolution stated National Policy, 
which led to the congressional termination acts of tribes. 

1953 ~ Termination Act, (P.L. 83-280, as amended). The law was passed by Congress in 1953. 
The termination policy enacted was actually implemented by a series of acts that terminated 
specific tribes from 1954 to 1967. During this time period a total of 109 federally recognized tribes 
and bands were terminated and their reservations dissolved. Associated Indian allotments and 
certain tribal rights were retained despite the termination process. The act significantly 
diminished tribal sovereignty in selected reservations and states, including California, Oregon and 
Washington. In 1968 the Termination Act was amended to require consent of a Indian nation 
before states could assume jurisdiction of Indian Reservations. Tribes were given the opportunity 
to terminate sovereignty; none have opted to do so. 

1955 ~ Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C.A.. S 7401-7642, as amended in 42 U.S.C.A. S 7474 (c)). The 

amendment to the act provided that only the tribal councils can redesignate Indian reservation 
lands to allow lower air quality. The EPA Administrator is allowed through 42 U.S.C.A. S 747(e) to 
resolve disputes between tribes and adjoining local governments. In 1978, the 1971 Code of 
Federal Regulation 40 C.F.R. S 52.21, which already provided the Clean Air act did not broaden 
authority over Indian reservations was amended by to give express recognition to Indian rights, (40 
C.F.R. S 52.21, 1978). 

1960 ~ Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, (74 Stat. 215; P.L. 86-517). Confirmed the policy of 
the Congress that National Forests were established and administered for outdoor recreation, 
range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. Authorized and directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable resources for multiple use and sustained yield 
of services and products obtained therefrom. Authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate 
with interested state and local governmental agencies and others in the development and 
management of the National Forests. 



■ .■:■.:■■■■■■■ 



■ ■■■ ■■ ■ -- ■■■■ . - ■■■■ - ■■■ ■ ..... .- "■ " : ' : M'^ T ■: ■-■-■? : ;;". ■■ri;-- ^■■^—■■-^^ 



I960 - Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, (96 Stat. 1322; P.L. 96-366). Provided for 
coordination of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture in cooperation with states to develop, 
plan, maintain, and coordinate programs for the conservation and rehabilitation of wildlife, fish, 
and game, including but not limited to specific habitat improvement projects and protection of 
threatened or endangered species. 

1960 ~ Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, (P.L. 86-523, as amended by P.L. 93-291). The act provide 
for consideration of cultural resources and archeological site protection from federal reservoir 
undertakings. The law helped form the basis for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

1966 ~ National Historic Preservation Act, (P.L. 89-665, as amended by P.L. 91-423, P.L. 94- 
422, P.L. 94-458 and P.L. 96-515. Explicitly incorporated tribal involvement with the Section 
1 06 Process and allowed for traditional properties without physical remains to be considered 
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several National Register Bulletins 
provide guidance for conformance with this act, i.e. Bulletin 38 dealing with Traditional Cultural 
Properties. The law is often referred to as NHPA and was last amended in 1992. 

1966 ~ Tribal Federal Jurisdiction Act, (80 Stat. 880, 28 U.S.C. 1362). Permits tribes to take 
steps independent of the Federal government to protect and assert their constitutional, statutory, 
and treaty rights. Granted tribes treatment similar to that of the United States had it sued on 
their behalf. 

1968 ~ Indian Civil Rights Act, (U.S.C. SS 1301 et seq./P.L. 90-284). Limited the power of 
tribal government by applying some of the language of the Bill of Rights to Indian Tribes, including 
the equal protection and due process clauses. There, however, is no comparable First Amendment 
clause. Tribal courts are also limited to judgements no greater than six months confinement and 
a five hundred dollar fine. This act also repealed section 7 of Public Law 280, which had allowed 
states unilaterally to assume jurisdiction over Indian lands and provided that states could only do 
so with the consent of affected tribes. 

1969 ~ National Environmental Policy Act, (83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq/P.L. 91-190). 

Established a framework for public and tribal involvement in land management planning and 
actions. The law also provides for consideration of Historic, Cultural, and natural aspects of our 
national heritage. 

1971 ~ Executive Order 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Environment. 

1973 ~ Endangered Species Act, (P.L. 93-205, Amended by P.L. 93-325 and P.L. 94-359). 

1974 - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, (88 Stat. 476, et seq). 

Directed and authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make an assessment of the renewable 
resources and to determine the ways and means needed to balance the demand for and the supply 
of these renewable resources, benefits, and uses for meeting the needs of the people of the United 
States. Assured that National Forest plans provide for multiple use, determine harvesting 
levels, and determine the availability and suitability for resource management. It also specified procedures 
to ensure that plans are in accordance with NEPA requirements. The act is referred to as RRA. 

1974 ~ Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, (P.L. 93-291). 

1974 ~ Federal Noxious Weed Act, (81 Stat. 2148; 7 U.S.C. 2801/P.L. 91-629, as amended). 

Recognizes that the import or distribution of noxious weeds in interstate commerce often allows for 
their growth and spread. This in turn can interfere with the growth of useful plants, clog waterways, 
interfere with navigation, cause disease, or other adverse effects upon people and the environment. 
Prohibits knowing actions or activities, which might further encourage noxious weeds. 



1975 ~ Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, (88 Stat.2203, 25 U.S.C. SS 
450-450n,455-458e/P.L. 93-638, as amended). Declared congressional commitment ..."to the 
maintenance of the unique and continuing relationship with an responsibility to Indian people 
through the meaningful Indian self-determination policy which will permit an orderly transition 
from Federal domination of programs for the services to Indians to effective and meaningful 
participation by the Indian people in the planning, conduct, and administration of those programs 
and services", 88 Stat at 2203. The act was amended in 1994, expanding tribal authority to 
assume responsibilities for tribal services formerly provided by agencies. 

1975 ~ American Indian Policy Review Commission, (88 Stat. 1910 et seq). Congress 
established this commission, " to conduct a comprehensive review of the historical and legal 
developments underlying American Indian's unique relationship with the Federal Government in 
order to determine the nature and scope of necessary revisions in the formulation of policies and 
programs to benefit Indians"., 88 Stat. 1910. Its Final Report to congress is dated May 1977. 

1975 ~ Dept. of Interior Treaty Fishing Regulations, (25 C.F.R. SS 255.1-10; 256.1-10; 258.1-7). 

This series of Code of Federal Regulations provides what exists for regulation of Indian treaty 
fishing rights by the Secretary of the Interior, at certain locations such as the Klamath River and 
the in lieu sites on the Columbia River. It also incudes rules for the identification of Indian 
fisherman and their nets, and other detailed regulations of specific fisheries. 

1976 ~ Federal Land Policy and Management Act, (43 U.S.C. SS 1702(e)(2), 1712(b), 1712(c)(9). 

Directed the Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate National Forest land use plans with the land 
use planning and management programs of Indian tribes. The law is often referred to as FLPMA. 

1976 ~ National Forest Management Act, (90 Stat. 2949, et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614). 

Amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974. The law is often referred to 
as NFMA. 

1977 ~ Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, (91 Stat. 1393;42 U.S.C. S 300j-6(a)/P.L. 95-190. 

Provides that the Public Health Service Act should not alter or affect the status of American Indian 
lands or water rights or waive any sovereignty over Indian lands guaranteed by treaty or statute. 

1978 ~ Federal Recognition Regulations. Established procedures for non-federally recognized tribes/ 
traditional Indian communities to gain federal recognition of their status and reservation lands. 

1978 ~ American Indian Religious Freedom Act, (P.L. 95-341, as amended). Required agencies 
to evaluate their actions regarding any restrictions on access to sacred areas. The law was 
amended in 1994. 

1978 ~ Indian Mineral Development Act. Provided authority to tribes to regulate and develop 
tribal mineral resources, and enter into joint agreements and leases. 

1979 ~ Archaeological Resources Protection Act, (93 Stat. 721; P.L. 96-95, as amended). The 

act (P.L. 96-96 and 96-95) required tribal notification and consultation in regard to proposed 
excavation of archeological sites and/or removal of artifacts by permit from public lands. Also, 
provides that federal excavations follow the permit protocal to consult with concerned tribes. The 
law is often referred to as ARPA. 

1983 ~ Presidential Statement on American Indian Policy (19 weekly Comp. Doc. 98-102). 

President Reagan's statement dated January 24, 1983 provided direction on treatment of 
American Indian tribes and their interests. 

1990 ~ Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, (25 U.S.C. 3001- 
3013/P.L. 101-601). Recognized Indian control of human remains and certain cultural objects 
when found on public lands and required consultation with appropriate tribes concerning federal 



finding or posession of Native American human remains and human burial objects. The law is 
often referred to as NAGPRA. 

1990 - National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, Title III (104 Stat. 4532; P.L. 101- 
630). Provides comprehensive direction for Secretary of Interior in Forest management and 
protection in concert with tribes. Clarifies role of the Department of Interior. Provides for 
education in Indian Forest management, funding of Tribal Forest programs and trespass issues. 

1993 ~ Religious Freedom Restoration Act, (P.L. 103-141). Established a higher standard for 
justifying government actions that may impact religious liberties. 

1993 ~ Executive Order 12866 - Regulatory Planning and Review. Enhanced planning and 
coordination concerning new and existing regulations. Made regulatory process more accessible 
and open to the public. Agencies directed to seek views of tribal officials before imposing regulatory 
requirements the might affect them. Sought to harmonize federal regulatory actions with other 
governmental functions. 

1993 - Executive Order 12875 - Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Reduced the 
imposition of unfunded mandates on other governments. Developed an effective process to permit 
other representative governments to provide timely input in the development of unfunded mandates. 

1993 ~ Interior Secretarial Order No. 3175. Established responsibility of all bureaus and 
agencies to carry out trust responsibilities of the Federal Government and assess the impacts of their 
actions on Indian trust resources: Required consultation with tribes when impacts are identified. 

1994 ~ Executive Order on Environmental Justice. Required increased effective participation of 
minorities and low economic groups in proposed project environmental assessments. 

1994 ~ State Law SB61. Placed tribes in a stronger role for protecting sites on state and private 
lands in Oregon. 

1994 ~ White House Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. 

Emphasized the importance of government to government relations with tribal governments and to 
consult with tribes prior to taking actions that may affect tribal interests, rights, and trust resources. 

1994 ~ Amendment to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, (PL103-344). 

1995 ~ Government to Government Relations. The US Justice Department, Attorney General 
issued and signed a policy statement on government to government relations on June 1. 1995. It 
includes references to tribes' sovereignty status and federal government's trust responsibility to 
tribal governments. 

1995 ~ Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendment. The act provides for tribal state and 
county governments to be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which prohibits 
federal agencies to form advisory committees that might affect its decision making process. This 
amendment recognizes these governments as performing already existing roles on an operational 
basis to represent people they are responsible to within their jurisdiction to other government 
bodies including the federal government. Thus federal agencies are free to consult with these type 
of governmental bodies and seek their advice on agencies planning activities/federal actions. 

1996 - Executive Order of May 24, 1996. Acknowledges the role of federal agencies to protect 
and preserve the religious practices and places of federally recognized tribes and enrolled tribal 
members. Requires federal agencies to consult with federally recognized tribes to learn of tribal 
concerns for sacred sites on public lands, and report finding to the President within one year of the 
executive order. Ensures access to religious places and avoidance of adverse effects on sacred sites 
in accordance with existing legislation. 



Evaluating Habitat, Harvestability, 
and Meeting American Indian Needs 

Introduction 

A primary concern of the Indian tribes in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 
Project area is the availability of the resources to which they have an interest. At issue is the 
availability of resources in sufficient quantities to allow harvest. A harvestable level would be one 
which would allow harvest or use of resources in sufficient quantities to satisfy the ceremonial, 
subsistence, and commercial needs of tribes at levels, while still providing the conservation needs 
of the species. Specific questions of those tribal or conservation needs have not been determined 
and it is outside the scope of this project to make any such determination. As noted in Chapter 2, 
it is recognized that differences exist in the meaning of harvestability in regard to U.S. case law and 
tribal desires for future socio-cultural conditions. 

It is a legal responsibility of the federal agencies to consult with the tribes and to take into account 
their needs in the decision-making process. This paper describes the method used to classify 
habitat rankings or viability outcome to indicate trends in viability; the relationship of 
harvestability to viability, and using this relationship to indicate the habitat's ability to support 
harvestable resources. 

How Harvestability Can Be Evaluated 

The ICBEMP used trends in habitat status or viability outcomes to measure the habitat's capability 
to sustain viable populations. Using the concepts developed for viability, trends in habitat 
conditions can be predicted for sustaining resources of interest to the tribes at harvestable levels. 
At this scale of assessment, the data will only support trends in relative habitat conditions. 

The Aquatics chapter of the Assessment of Ecosystem Components used population status and 
distribution to indicate trends in viability. The current status calls for key salmonid species at the 
6th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) and followed the criteria below: 

Present-strong 

All life history forms present. 

Population stable or increasing with local population likely to be half or more of its historical size or density. 

Population or metapopulation probably contains at least 5,000 individuals or 500 adults. 

Present-depressed 

A major life history component has been eliminated. 

Population is declining with numbers less than half of historical capability. 

Population or metapopulation is less than 5,000 total fish or 500 adults. 

Absent 

Key salmonid is not present. It is either extinct or never occupied the watershed. The watershed is 
within the natural range and colonization was or is possible. 

Present -unknown 

The key salmonid is present, but there is no reliable information to judge the current status. 

Present-migration/overwintering 

Migration corridors are portions of the watershed that do not support spawning or rearing, and 

function solely as routes or staging and wintering areas for migrating fish. 

Unknown 

There is no information regarding the current presence or absence of the species. 



These determinations were made using all available information and using biologists with local 
knowledge making the status call. Simultaneously, the same biologists made a status call of all 
fish species in the 5th-field HUC to characterize fish communities. This status call used only two 
criteria: present or absent. 

The status call of present-strong for the key species will be displayed by 6th-field HUC. This 
status, while not accounting for population levels related to viable or harvestable does provide an 
indication that a "harvestable" population may exist based solely on the status call of "present- 
strong". This status can then be tracked through the modeling of scenarios and alternatives to 
determine if a disturbance or group of disturbance mechanisms will reduce or maintain that 
population at that status call through time thereby assuring that a "harvestable" population may 
continue to exist. 

At that point it would be appropriate to go to the next level or fine scale and determine the relative 
population that does exist and if it exists within a larger metapopulation or subpopulation. This 
level of detail is too fine for the Scientific Assessment of the ICBEMP and will need to be conducted 
by field units using this data assessment as a starting point for context. It would still be necessary 
to determine site-specific fish population status and habitat conditions before any viable or 
harvestable levels could be defined in a finite manner. 

Trends in status can be predicted on a broad scale based on the effects of a proposed action. If a 
species stays in a present- strong status then the species will remain harvestable. By assessing the 
effects of the proposed action, predictions can be made on whether the status will change, 
reflecting a trend in harvestable levels. 

The Terrestrial Ecology chapter of the Assessment of Ecosystem Components measured the effects of 
alternatives on species, particularly the degree to which habitat conditions contribute to the long- 
term maintenance of plants and animals.. The evaluation provided a reasoned series of judgements 
about projected amounts and distributions of habitat and the likelihood that such habitats would 
allow populations to persist over 100 years. These outcomes followed the criteria below: 

Outcome 1 Habitat is broadly distributed across the planning area with opportunity for 
continuous or nearly continuous occupation by species and little or no 
limitation on population interactions. 



Outcome 2 Habitat is broadly distributed across the planning area, although gaps exist 
within this distribution. Disjunct patches of habitat are typically large 
enough and close enough to other patches to permit species dispersal among 
patches and to allow species to interact as a metapopulation (local 
populations linked by migrants, allowing for recolonization of unoccupied 
habitat patches after local extinction events) . 

Outcome 3 Habitat exists primarily as patches, some of which are small or isolated to the 
degree that species interactions are limited. Local subpopulations in most of 
the species' range interact as a metapopulation,- but some patches are so 
disjunct that subpopulations in those patches are essentially isolated from 
other populations. 

Outcome 4 Habitat is typically distributed as isolated patches, with strong limitation in 
interactions of populations among patches and limited opportunity for 
dispersal among patches. Some local populations may be extirpated, and rate 
of recolonization will likely be slow. 

Outcome 5 Habitat is very scarce throughout the area with little or no possibility of 

interactions among local populations, strong potential for extirpations, and 
little likelihood of recolonization. 



Outcome 1 indicates that a habitat to sustain a harvestable population exists. This outcome can 
then be tracked, as with the aquatic status, through the modeling of scenarios and alternatives to 
determine if a disturbance or group of disturbance mechanisms will maintain that habitat in the 
outcome ranking through time, thereby assuring a "'harvestable population". By assessing the 
effects of the proposed action we can predict whether the Outcome will change, reflecting a trend 
in harvestable levels. 

These approaches to this project's assessment of harvestability relative to the Federal 
Government's trust responsibilities. This should only be used as a starting point for continued 
consultation between field units and individual tribes in further defining harvestable populations 
and the contribution habitat provides for the culturally, spiritually, and religiously important 
plants, animals, and fish species of the tribes in the project area. 

Ethno-Habitats ~ A Bridge in 
Understanding Tribal Issues 



People of all cultures relate to and interact with their world in ways necessary to sustain life and 
provide for their life ways. Those aspects of a peoples' world and culture, which contribute to this 
end usually become especially important to their overall community well being. Ultimately, the 
dependence upon and relationship a people have with their world must rely on meaningful cultural 
divisions of their environment and all it contains, fostering concepts of places, habitats, life forms, 
objects and their groupings. The sum of socially and/or traditionally significant relationships a 
people have with their world (for example, through land uses) and its parts provide a context for 
understanding the useful nature of their environment and what makes it, and its culturally 
significant components important. 

The project area's native Indian peoples have continued their long held interest and reliance on 
regional ecosystems even as their cultures change, employing both traditional and non-native ways 
of relating to their homelands and interest areas (lands where a tribe(s) have traditionally ranged to 
sustain their life way). Public lands serve to help sustain modern Indian peoples' way of life, 
cultural integrity, social cohesion and socio-economic well being. This occurs in part because 
these lands encompass large areas of traditional Indian homelands, places, habitats, resources, 
ancestral remains, spirits, cultural symbols and cultural heritage, which are still respected, visited, 
or used. 

Federal agencies have become increasingly aware of how public land management has and 
continues to play an important role in providing for or influencing tribal interest, rights, needs, and 
cultural practices. Providing opportunities for traditional American Indian land uses and resource 
acquisition as a goal, requires that habitats and species (including life forms socially and/ or 
traditionally significant) must be present and available year after year. The presence of healthy 
habitats is fundamental to the achievement of both useable and harvestable levels of resources 
significant to Indian peoples as well as to healthy ecosystems. 



Description of Ethno-Habitats 



Habitat as a concept is often defined in biological sciences as a place that supports the life of an 
organism, or species community including a site, locality or local environment type, for example, a 
mud flat, lake and upland wetland. The proper functioning condition of a habitat and its current 



ability to support its potential natural plant and animal community are biophysical elements that 
can be assessed to help describe the relative health of an ecosystem. Appropriate scientific 
measures of habitats and their corresponding relationships to larger ecosystem components are 
useful indicators of a species' potential well-being in a given geographical area. However, this 
information alone would be insufficient to address the biophysical health of socially and 
traditionally important places (ethno-habitats). 

Ethno-habitats are places , defined and understood by groups of people, within the context of their 
culture, identifiable in part by the culturally significant life forms or life form groups found there by 
cultural participants. In a general sense ethno-habitats may be thought of as "folk categories" of 
places and may even be defined using criteria similar to that used by ecologists or biologists to 
define a landscape. However, the concept is based in anthropology and geography and refers to the 
ways a culture classifies and organizes its landscapes. They are places of culturally familiar 
features, unique biological resources and usually have spatial conditions that facilitate harvests 
and often processing facilities. Ethno-habitats are defined by the cultural knowledge and ordinary 
experiences of traditional users, their well being is often known by these same people. 

As a type of habitat, they typically have subsets of places where useable and adequate quantities of 
culturally significant life forms (species) may be acquired. These are somewhat analogous to 
ecological constructs such as a species'/species group's community, habitat and biochore. In fact, 
biophysical specialists may themselves understand ethno-habitats through correlates in their own 
profession's concepts of landscape elements, or cultural perceptions, for example, timber stands. 
Recognition and understanding of culturally significant plants and animals has traditionally been 
within the context of native taxonomic systems, developed by each indigenous culture. Although 
invariably different from Euro-American taxonomic systems, many similarities in how life form 
categories are recognized are common between the various taxonomic systems. However, 
differences do exist, which support different conceptual paradigms of life form categories, for 
example, life form classifications recognized by finer or more general divisions, or based on 
different structures or attributes. 

Places such as fishing grounds and stations, hunting districts, berry patches, root fields, tree 
groves (western red cedar, pinion, white bark pine etc.) and medicine sites may all be examples of 
ethno-habitats. They can also be thought of as components to larger units such as traditional 
cultural places, aboriginal homelands or areas of interests, including both specific areas where 
traditional uses/activities are most likely to occur and general areas where harvest related 
activities may occur. Thus, ethno-habitats may serve as the basic unit for examining or 
determining whether cultural uses (traditional activities) are being provided for on federal lands. 

Understanding what constitutes useable and adequate quantities of resources like culturally 
significant fish, animal and plant species is dependent on knowing the relationships between 
human uses, cultural information systems, and biological information. It also involves familiarity 
with a culture's relationships with species and their habitats, for example, taxonomy systems; 
ethno-habitat capabilities; human needs and practices: relevant ecosystem patterns and influences; 
biology of species (life-cycles etc.); and their interrelationships through time. Practical use and 
application of the relationships between a culture and natural resources/habitats/landscapes 
requires understanding the cultural information of a people, and their resource-landscape divisions 
in which they interact, that is, the way they use their cultural and biological expertise. 

The concepts of something being "useable" and "adequate in quantity", and of landscape divisions 
creating "places" are made meaningful in the context of the culture, which identifies and maintains 
these values and creates relationships with familiar landscapes and resources. In the case of 
American Indian tribes, the useability ofresourc.es are largely determined by cultural values like 
taste, texture, size classes, cultural significance, concentration of a resource, intended use and 
other cultural (non-biological) information that frequently differs from non-Indian resource values. 
Furthermore the useability of resources, their accessibility and the cultural significance of a 
resource place taken together may form the basis for identifying and describing an ethno-habitat. 



., ,,, , ,,,,,. ,:,- : -. ,.,,;,;.; .,.,.,,., 



Similarly, adequate quantities of resources may be determined by social-cultural systems (social 
reciprocity, native religions) that typically are a part of and help bind together land dependent 
Indian communities. A tribe or traditional community may describe adequate quantities of 
culturally significant species for federal agencies in order to attain a common understanding, for 
example, number of spring chinook salmon needed annually by a tribe from a primary fishing 
ground. Of course, such assessments are inherently elastic in nature as people recognize natural 
fluctuations in biological systems, habitat conditions, climatic influences, and available commercial 
markets together with a given tribe's cultural and social/economic needs. 

The aspect of place as an essential component of an ethno-habitat provides both criteria to help 
identify landscape division(s) and a basis for protecting, restoring and/or conserving what is 
culturally significant about the divisions. Inherent in such place types are the full array of cultural 
connections people have formed with them, and the familiarity and dependence an extended family, 
community, tribe or tribes may have on their resources. Ethno-habitats are often seen in sets or 
groups interconnected and valued within the broader values and activities of Indian communities. 
As such, ethno-habitats have physical and biological elements which a culture may use to 
recognize and evaluate them. 

For example, a fishing station on a free flowing river system may need to have certain physical 
features such as a convenient current flow to direct fish under scaffolds; sufficient water quality for 
human health; the presence of one or more culturally significant fish species in adequate 
quantities, and adequate access during fishing seasons. Fishing grounds, like the legally 
recognized "zone 6" of the mid-Columbia River, is a larger scale ethno-habitat type which can be 
recognizable spatially as a related set of fishing stations with habitat connectivity or influences, and 
culturally perceived by peoples as one and/or a collective body of significant, and useable places. 

Another example of a large scale ethno-habitat is where a complex of scablands, as those located in 
parts of the North Fork John Day sub-basin, are used by people as a place(s) to gather plant foods. 
They are characterized by extensive lithosols (shallow rocky soils) and known by families located in 
several Indian communities and reservations as a place or set of resource places. The unique 
hydrology and geology of the area created numerous geographically discrete habitats for plant 
communities, which continue to be visited by distant Indian communities. Places in the area are 
also considered convenient for base camps or temporary camping. Various standard roads and 
sometimes trails provide access to places recognized as root fields. These root fields are either a 
component within or coterminous with a scabland area and are valued differently given factors 
such as species composition, density, accessibility and associations to some Indian families. 

The useability of ethno-habitats is also assessed by traditional users and tribes through other 
cultural criteria such as customary use practices or restrictions: familiarity of a species or habitat; 
presence of physical, administrative, and social barriers to access: adequate access for people, 
materials and/or vehicles; and the availability of seasonal resources. Certain families may visit 
specific root fields at different times of the spring and early summer as the particular plants 
become ready for harvest, or as family schedules dictate. 

All agency units should expect to find they have jurisdiction of lands with ethno-habitats and that 
some management for tribal rights, interests and/or uses will be required. Still, agency 
understandings of ethno-habitats is extremely variable and depends largely on meaningful 
communication with tribes and traditional users. The intent of creating dialogue on ethno-habitats 
between American Indians and Forest Service and BLM agency units is to help conserve and 
protect healthy, sustainable, useable and accessible resources for traditional users. Therefore, the 
identification, management and monitoring of ethno-habitats needs to be conducted in 
consultation with tribes and involve resource user's knowledge and expertise. Biophysical 
expertise, often relied upon by federal agencies and tribal governments, can provide an important 
knowledge base that should be used in concert with the cultural expertise of traditional users to 
aid agency decisions. 



The environmental concerns of tribes involve fine, mid and broad ecosystem management scales, 
given factors which affect ethno-habitats located within tribes' reservations, ceded lands and areas 
of interest. At the broad and mid^scale levels, there is less dependance on and influence from 
cultural classification systems/values upon ecosystem management and a great influence from 
scientific paradigms taken from disciplines such as ecology, landscape ecology and geography. In 
other words, people and their cultures typically function within fine scale landscapes, 
understanding and creating most of their meaningful world divisions at this spatial level. Thus, 
larger scale assessments may more freely use scientific templates to frame ethno-habitat needs. 

Consideration of ethno-habitats at mid and large scale levels in public land management can be 
helped by using scientific constructs, that is, terrestrial vegetation communities, potential 
vegetation groups and sub-basin spatial units; large scale assessment techniques; and 
understandings of the regulation processes, patterns, functions and structures of ecosystem 
components. Information about current and projected species populations, and habitat 
distributions can also provide data useful for fine scale assessments of some ethno-habitats and 
culturally significant species, for example, viability panel assessments for species with identified 
viability concerns (Appendix 4-2 on Viability and the Harvestability section in this Appendix) . 

Broad and mid-scale landscape assessments can provide a framework for addressing tribal issues 
concerning American Indian ethno-habitats; however, all ecosystem management scales 
necessarily require meaningful dialogue with those who would most benefit. Tribal consultation, 
as an ongoing process, is an essential element in ethno-habitat management to facilitate the 
conservation and restoration (passive and active) of culturally significant habitat places and 
allowances for cultural uses. Commitment by decision makers to provide for culturally significant 
species and their habitats at sustainable/useable levels would help federal land managing agencies 
address their trust responsibilities toward tribes, meet the intent of statutes that encourage dialogue 
between agencies and concerned public land users, and allow for American Indian life ways. 



Exmhok Draft EIS/P,\c.e 98 



Appendix 1-3 
Public Involvement 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix D) 




Contents 

Introduction 100 

Public Involvement Planning 1 00 

Scoping 101 

Input During Alternative Development 103 

Public Briefings and Presentations 1 04 

Sources of Eastside EIS Information 105 

Intergovernmental Coordination 1 07 

Input on a Preferred Alternative for the Draft EIS J 08 



■■-■- ■■:■■-■:■■■;■■■:■■■ -■ ■:■■::■ ^:y:^:v-^n::v:: ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■:■■■:■■. :- : :-i-u-i-i--4 ■■■ '■■■ ■■■■;■■■ ■■-■■ ■■■■■ ■ ■ - : ;''■' ■ ■■ -■ 



. . ...... 

: : ::r : :' : .'; : .'::.: : . : : : .: ; ■■':':' : : : . 






Introduction 



This appendix describes the public involvement that occurred during the development of the 
Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Public involvement that took place in 
conjunction with other components of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
(Project), specifically with development of the Project's science products and the Upper Columbia 
River Basin (UCRB) Draft Environmental Impact Statement, is described in the Integrated Scientific 
Assessment (Quigley et al. 1996) and the UCRB Draft EIS. The efforts among the teams were 
coordinated and sometimes combined. 

The overall goal for public involvement was to provide an "open process." An open process was 
defined as involving people early and often, sharing information as it became available even if it 
was in draft form. It meant reaching out to a wide spectrum of the public interested in the 
management of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the Forest Service 
using some non-traditional methods. It meant coordination and consultation with federal, state, 
county, and tribal governments. And it meant showing how public input was used in the 
development of the Eastside EIS. 

The remainder of this appendix describes the efforts undertaken by the Eastside EIS Team to meet 
this goal. As with other parts of the EIS, the team is interested in your comments on the 
effectiveness of this public involvement strategy. 

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project was chartered by the Director of the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the Forest Service in January 1994. To respond 
to the direction in the Charter, a public involvement plan was prepared. This plan ensured that 
the public would have numerous opportunities to be actively involved in determining how public 
land management might change. Specific communication goals contained in the plan include: 

♦ Bring scientists, land managers, and the public into a closer, working partnership. 
♦Work openly with the public toward mutually desired natural resource management objectives. 

♦ Develop a common understanding of ecosystem management. 

The plan identified the following expected outcomes: 

♦ Improved communication and coordination between scientists, land managers and the 
public; 

♦ Mutual learning by all parties; 
♦Transfer of technology and information; 

♦ Better understanding and support of ecosystem management. 

The communication plan has been, and will continue to be, dynamic in meeting the changing 
needs of the public and the Project. 

The Eastside EIS Team recognized that it would be important to try new and different ways to 
involve the public because of the geographic scale and the complexity of the Project. The EIS area 
includes most of eastern Oregon and Washington covering nearly 30 million acres of public lands 
administered by the BLM or the Forest Service. The Project's Charter directed the teams to use an 
open process in developing "a scientifically sound ecosystem based management plan" for those 
public lands with their diverse social, economic, biological, and physical components and to involve 
the public in developing the plan. The following sections explain the multiple avenues for public 
participation in the Project. 



Scoping 



Scoping is a process required in the early stages of preparing an environmental impact statement. 
Public input is solicited on the scope and significance of the proposed action. The comments are 
used to help determine the level of analysis required, the data needed, and the issues to be 
considered in the development and analysis of a range of alternatives in the environmental impact 
statement. 

Scoping for the Eastside EIS began with the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (59 FR 4680) 
on February 1 , 1 994 and continued through July 2. 1994. (The original Notice of Intent was 
revised on May 23, 1994, August 25, 1995, and January 15, 1997.) Legal notices and news 
releases were sent to newspapers throughout Oregon and Washington announcing the Project and 
the publishing of the Notice of Intent. 

In February and March 1994, a series of meetings were held in Oregon and Washington 
introducing the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (see Table 1). In addition 
to evening public meetings, contact was made with BLM and Forest Service employees, government 
officials, and the media. Over 960 people attended evening public meetings, and over 430 
employees attended afternoon briefings. 

The first half of the meeting was an introduction and overview of the Project, and its science and 
EIS (management) components. There were many questions and concerns about the size of the 
study area, how local voices would be heard, what "ecosystem management" meant, and 
clarification about what sorts of decisions would be made. 



Table 1: Project Introduction Meetings from February 15 to 
March 10, 1994 

Date Location Attendance* 



February 15 


Walla Walla, WA 


100 


February 16 


Bend, OR 


63 


February 17 


Lakeview, OR 


30 


February 17 


Klamath Falls, OR 


70 


February 22 


John Day, OR 


50 


February 23 


Okanogan, WA 


80 


February 24 


Chewelah, WA 


200 


February 28 


La Grande, OR 


120 


March 1 


Salem, OR 


19 


March 1 


Wenatchee, WA 


75 


March 2 


Seattle, WA 


75 


March 10 


Spokane, WA 


80 



Total Attendance 962 



* Those who signed in; total attendance was higher at many sites. 



; : ::■ : : : .:.::::::.; :.:: ; :::;: s 



People were asked how they would like to be involved with the Project during the second half of the 
meeting. There were many suggestions including: . 

♦ Project information available locally; 
♦A computer bulletin board service; 

♦ Information bulletins such as news releases, newsletters, and other mailings; 
♦A toll-free information line; and 

♦Video and satellite conference calls. 

When the public was asked "What information is the most important to have," the common 
response was "All of it, available 24 hours a day." 

People also suggested ways to improve the public meetings. First, additional and different 
locations were suggested to better cover the EIS area. Secondly, people felt they could be better 
prepared to give input if they had more information prior to the meetings. These suggestions were 
incorporated in planning the scoping meetings. Additional information about the initial meetings 
can be found in the paper Public Meeting Evaluations - Round 1 (March 7, 1994). 

EIS scoping meetings were held in Oregon and Washington during late May and early June 1994 
(see Table 2). Over 750 people attended these meeting. The meetings were announced in the 
Revised Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register (59 FR 26624) in May and in newspapers 
throughout Washington and Oregon. In addition, notices were sent in May to those on the Project 
mailing list. BLM and Forest Service employee scoping sessions were held prior to the evening 
meetings. Over 280 employees attended these sessions. 

Two weeks before the meetings, a package of information containing background on the Project, and some 
preliminary issues previously identified by the public were mailed to those on the Project mailing list. 

The first part of the scoping meetings consisted of a brief overview of the current status of the EIS 
and a question and answer session. During the second half of the meetings, small groups were 
formed and people's comments were recorded by a facilitator. Each small group presented a 
summary of their comments to the larger group. Comments and questions recorded at these 
meetings and the employee sessions were included as part of the scoping record. 



Table 2: Scoping Meetings from May 23 to June 2, 1994 



Date 


Location 


Attend; 


May 23 


Walla Walla, WA 


15 


May 24 


Bend, OR 


40 


May 24 


John Day, OR 


100 


May 24 


Wenatchee. WA 


30 


May 25 


Lakeview, WA 


10 


May 25 


Burns, OR 


90 


May 25 


Okanogan, WA 


90 


May 26 


Klamath Falls, WA 


50 


May 26 


Vale, OR 


30 


May 26 


Colville, WA 


100 


May 31 


Spokane, WA 


40 


May 31 


La Grande, OR 


50 


June 1 


Portland, OR 


50 


June 1 


Yakima, WA 


20 


June 2 


Seattle, WA 


40 



Total Attendance 755 



* Those who signed in; total attendance was higher at many sites. 



■ . . 

...:::..:..:-■■■■■ ..■.........:. 



The Eastside EIS Team received over 350 written comments in the form of letters, postcards, 
response forms, and faxes. From correspondence and public meetings, the Eastside EIS Team 
coded over 3, 100 individual comments. These comments were analyzed and a preliminary list of 
issues was developed. In November 1994. the EIS Team mailed a copy of a paper titled Preliminary 
Issues for the Development of Alternatives to the Project mailing list. The paper described where the 
comments came from, how they were analyzed, and presented a list of 12 preliminary issues. The 
list of preliminary issues was later reduced to the five presented in Chapter 1 of the EIS. Appendix 1-4 
provides additional information on issue identification and development. 

Input During Alternative Development 

After the scoping period, public input was sought and used while EIS alternatives were being 
developed. The following steps were taken in developing the alternatives. 

Concepts for Alternatives 

In March 1995 the Eastside EIS Team sent to their mailing list a paper titled Preliminary Concepts for 
the Design of Alternatives. The paper described a process for building alternatives, elements of an 
alternative, the role of concepts in building alternatives, where the concepts were derived, and the 18 
concepts. The public was asked to comment on how the concepts responded to their interests. 

The Team received 59 comments on the paper, and wrote the Summary of Public Comment on 
Concepts, which summarizes the comments (see Appendix 3-3). Input on the concepts was used in 
developing the themes for alternatives. 

Goals for Alternatives 

The Eastside EIS Team and the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS Team prepared a joint paper on 
goals for EIS alternatives that was sent to a combined mailing list of over 5,000 people. The paper, 
Preliminary Coals for the Development of Alternatives, updated the status of the two EISs, 
described the role that goals play in developing alternatives, and asked for input on the seven 
preliminary goals . 

The teams received over 140 responses. The comments were summarized in the paper Summary of 
Public Comments on Goals for Developing Alternatives found in Appendix 3-3. The teams used this 
information to help finalize a list of five goals in June 1995. 



Themes for Alternatives 



In August 1995, the EIS Teams sent out a joint paper on themes for alternatives. The purpose of 
the paper was to give the public a flavor of the number and types of alternatives the EIS Teams 
were developing and analyzing. The themes described the emphasis for each of the seven 
alternatives. The paper also presented a final list of public issues, goals for alternatives, and 
planning criteria. Although feedback was not solicited, the teams received comments from four 
individuals/organizations. These comments are included in the administrative record. 



■""■'" ■:„..■:■ ..:, 






Public Briefings and Presentations 

Project Briefings 

Beginning in March 1994, the Project held monthly briefings hosted by the Science Integration 
Team and the Eastside EIS Team. The Upper Columbia River Basin E1S Team joined the monthly 
briefings in January 1995. The purposes of the briefings were to provide an update on the 
progress of the science and EIS products, answer questions, and provide a continuing dialogue 
between the public and the Project staff. Beginning in 1996, briefings were held as new 
information became available, generally every two to four months. 

During the project briefings, Science Integration Team members representing the Aquatic, 
Terrestrial, Landscape Ecology, Social Science, Economic, and Spatial staff areas, and EIS Team 
representatives made presentations followed by a question and answer session. The format of the 
briefings changed in 1995 to include an open house segment where the science staff areas and EIS 
Team members could meet with the public one-on-one. The briefings were held in Walla Walla, 
Washington; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Missoula, Montana; and Boise, Idaho. There were over twenty 
Project briefings held from March 1994 to February 1997. 

The EIS Team used these briefings to present pieces of the EIS that were being worked on at the time. 
Draft versions of the Purpose and Need, Proposed Action, and the various components of alternatives 
were presented at these briefings. The Team answered questions and accepted feedback. 

The briefings were open to everyone. Notices containing the date, time, location, and agenda were 
sent to the Project mailing list two to three weeks prior to the briefings. News releases were sent 
out to the local media where the briefings were held. The briefings were generally a day or a day 
and a half long. There were some evening sessions, in which special topics related to the Project 
were presented, such as the economic life in rural counties, an American Indian perspective of 
natural resource management, and a history of the Columbia River Basin. Attendance at the 
briefings and evening sessions varied but was generally between 40 and 100 people. 

For those people who could not attend the briefings, the general content of the presentations, and 
the questions and answers were recorded and made available to the public through the electronic 
library, local information binders, and by request. 



Social Science Symposium 



The project's social science staff held a day-long symposium on the Social Implications of Ecosystem 
Management in Spokane on April 29, 1995. The symposium was free and widely advertised, 
including an announcement of the session to everyone on the Project mailing list. The purpose was 
to share ideas and research results, demonstrate how research applies to people's practical needs, 
and provide a forum for discussing social aspects of the Project. 

The symposium, attended by 80 people, consisted of 13 separate presentations about social 
research and analysis being conducted for the project; much time was devoted to question and 
answer sessions. Topics discussed by the 26 social scientists included community health and 
resiliency, scenery and recreation, and public participation techniques and principles. Evaluation 
forms completed by the attendees suggested that the symposium was a useful approach in 
exchanging information and making science more accessible to people. A full report on the 
symposium, including the evaluation forms and abstracts of all presentations, is available from the 
Project office in Walla Walla. 



Special Presentations 

The Project responded to over 70 requests for presentations from other federal agencies, state, 
county, and tribal governments, forest and rangeland user groups, conservation and environmental 
organizations, professional societies, and civic organizations. Over 2,800 people attended the 
various presentations. Most presentations gave overviews of the Science and EIS components of 
the Project, but some presentations focused on specific aspects of the Project. 

Sources ofEastside EIS Information 

Information about the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, and more 
specifically the Eastside EIS, was made available through a variety of media. Suggestions from the 
public were used to develop a set of communication tools. A brief description of the tools follows. 

Project Mailing List 

A Project mailing list was created in January 1994. The initial list was created using key contacts 
provided by BLM and Forest Service offices in eastern Oregon and Washington. Public meetings 
and people contacting the office were the two greatest sources of additions to the list. By the end 
of the first quarter of 1994, there were nearly 1,000 names on the list. By the end of 1994 the list 
had grown to nearly 3,000 names. As of February 1997, the mailing list contained over 3,400 
names. People on the mailing list routinely received notices of upcoming meetings, newsletters, 
draft documents, and EIS mailers. 

Whenever there were joint mailers by the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS Teams, the 
two mailing lists were combined with duplicate mailing addresses dropped. The combined mailing 
list contains over 4,000 names. 



Newsletters 

From February 1994 to March 1997, fifteen volumes of the Eastside Edge, the Project newsletter, 
were published and distributed to those on the Eastside EIS mailing list, and to BLM and Forest 
Service employees. The purpose of the newsletters was to keep people updated on the progress of 
the Science and EIS documents and to provide insight into what would be discussed in those 
documents. In September 1996, the name of the newsletter was changed to the Leading Edge and 
are now distributed to those on the entire Project mailing list. 



Project Information Binders 



In 44 different location throughout Washington and Oregon, Project information binders were made 
available to the public. The binders were developed in response to the request to have Project 
information available locally. The binders were located in BLM and Forest Service offices, and at 
public libraries. The binders contained both Science Integration Team and Eastside EIS 
information. Information included general background on the Project, meeting notes from the 
Project briefings, draft Science and EIS documents, newsletters, and other material developed by 
the teams. 



Electronic Library 



During the first round of meetings, many people suggested setting up an electronic bulletin board 
as a way to facilitate public involvement. The Project took a first step in that direction by 
developing an electronic library where Project information was stored. People with personal 
computers and modems could connect directly with the Project computer system to read and 
download documents. The electronic library was not interactive but it did provide another means 
for making information more accessible. As of August 1996, approximately 350 individual users 
had accessed the electronic library. 



Internet 

In October 1995, the information from the electronic library was made available on Internet 
through the Forest Service Home Page system. Similar to the electronic library, information was 
available to read and download. This allowed many more people local access to Project information 
through their local Internet servers without having to call long distance to Walla Walla. This 
helped expand the publics' ability to access the Project's information. 

In August 1996, Project staff developed a World Wide Web site where Project information now 
resides. The Web site address is http://www.icbemp.gov and was expanded to include the 
following information: 

♦ Geographic Information Systems data and themes; 

♦ Science Integration Team reports; 

♦ Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS public involvement, documents, and status: 
and 

♦ Project personnel. 

As of February 1997, over 1,800 people had visited the Project's homepage. 



Toil-Free Telephone Number 



A toll-free number provided another means for people to access Project information. People callinc 
the number were provided a menu of topic items which contained current information about the 
Project. The information was updated once or twice a month and included a list of upcoming 
events and a report on Science and EIS progress. People calling the toll-free number during 
business hours could talk to the receptionist to obtain additional information. 



8*&&$ '.',:■,. ,: ■ '■■ : _" : : ?&§&&!&$&< 



Intergovernmental Coordination 

Federal and State Agencies 

The BLM and Forest Service are the lead agencies for the EIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Bureau of Mines provided 
personnel that were part of the EIS interdisciplinary team at various times. Other federal agencies 
that provided information and input during the development of the Draft EIS included the U.S. 
Geological Survey and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal cooperating agencies are the Bureau 
of Reclamation, Bonneville Power Authority, and National Park Service. 

Various state agencies and representatives of the governors for Oregon and Washington were 
contacted to ensure state concerns were adequately incorporated into the Draft EIS. In particular, 
state agencies with responsibility for fish, wildlife, forestry and natural resources, and air and 
water were involved. In addition, senior natural resource advisers from both states have 
maintained a continuing dialogue and remain interested in development of the Draft EIS. A 
complete list of federal and state agencies contacted is found in Chapter 5. 

Counties 

County governments were actively involved in the Project. In order to facilitate their participation, 
the counties formed the Eastside Ecosystem Coalition of Counties the summer of 1994. Consisting 
of members from Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, the coalition was charged with 
providing county input into the Project. 

A Memorandum of Understanding between the Coalition and the Project was signed in September 
1995. Project personnel attended 20 Coalition meetings between May 1994 and March 1997. They 
shared information on the Project's progress and provided draft documents for the Coalition's 
review. Coalition members presented county concerns and provided input on draft documents. 

Tribal Governments 

The Project's Tribal Liaison group contacted more than 25 individual Indian tribes, 22 of which 
expressed various degree of interest in being kept informed of the Project's progress. The 
purpose of the contact was to work closely and continuously to integrate tribal interests into the 
planning process. Many of the tribes contacted provided review and suggestions as the products 
were developing. 

Another objective of the contacts was to provide the opportunity for government-to-government 
consultation. A number of tribes took advantage of this opportunity. Contacts were made formally 
to the tribal governments and informally to tribal staff or key contacts within the tribal 
organizations. Additional information on federal trust responsibilities and other tribal information 
is found in Appendix 1-2. 



'.i::; ; --} : "~' 






Resource Advisory Councils/Provincial Advisory 
Committees 

Resource Advisory Councils and Provincial Advisory Committees are groups that advise the BLM 

and Forest Service on land management programs and issues. Chartered under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, these advisory bodies are made up of local citizens representing a 

diversity of public land interests. The advisory committees/councils have been briefed by the 

Project and provided draft versions of the EIS for their review and comment. 

I 

Input on a Preferred Alternative for 
the Draft EIS 

The Project's Executive Steering Committee decided to solicit input on a preferred alternative as 
part of their intergovernmental coordination efforts before making their selection. Preliminary 
copies of the DEIS were shared with states, tribes. Resource Advisory Councils, Provincial Advisory 
Committees, and the Coalition of Counties. The Executive Steering Committee met with most of 
these groups at least once to solicit their input. Some groups recommended that a specific 
alternative be selected. They also included changes or issues they wished to have addressed. 
Other groups chose to list the concerns they had with one or more of the alternatives and did not 
recommend a Preferred Alternative. 



m 



Appendix 1-4 
Issue Identification 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix D) 




This Appendix contains 
the following items: 

• Introduction 

• Scoping Process 

• Issues adddressed 

in the EIS 



: -, : ... ..-, ■■■,., ............................................. ,..,, 



Introduction 



Eastside EIS scoping identified the issues and concerns people have about public lands managed 
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service in eastern Oregon and Washington. 
This information was collected for several reasons: 

1. To help identify what data should be collected for the draft EIS. 

2. To help develop ecosystem management alternatives for the draft EIS. 

3. To help identify environmental consequences that should be addressed in the draft EIS. 

An issue is defined as an ecosystem condition, management practice, or consequence that society 
cares about, that is well-defined, and that can be addressed through alternative management 
strategies in the draft EIS. Issues tend to be controversial because people hold different values 
about public land resources and therefore different opinions about how public lands should be 
managed. Ecosystem management strives to recognize these values and provide sustainable public 
benefits within the capacity of the ecosystem. 

Traditionally, issues identified through analysis of public scoping comments have been oriented 
toward management of individual resources, such as timber, recreation, wildlife, scenery, range, or 
water located on Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands. The concepts of ecosystem 
management stress the integration and interrelationships of all parts and functions of an 
ecosystem, including the human component. 

In this EIS, the goal is to develop and evaluate alternative ecosystem management strategies for 
Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands in eastern Oregon and Washington. The end result is 
ecosystems that are diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable. Toward that end, the issue 
statements that follow have been designed in a less traditional approach to show the integration 
and interdependence of all resources in each issue. 



Scoping Process 



Scoping began with a Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register on February 1, 1994. and 
continued through July 2, 1994. People provided comments to the project in both written and 
verbal form via two major avenues - correspondence and public workshops. 

Correspondence consisted of letters, postcards, and faxes. Each correspondence item that related 
to scoping was set aside to be reviewed by the EIS Team. Public scoping workshops were held in 
15 locations throughout Oregon and Washington in late May and early June, 1994. Comments 
were recorded from discussions and presentations made at the public workshops and through 
written comments provided on the forms that were distributed to workshop participants. More 
than 750 people participated in the workshops and 280 BLM and Forest Service employees 
attended 14 employee briefings. See the Scoping section of the Public Involvement Appendix for 
the specific dates, places, and attendance numbers of these workshops. 

Analysis of Scoping Comments 

Scoping comments were compiled using content analysis, a systematic, trackable process (a full 
description of the process and all comments received is available from the project office in Walla 
Walla). Over 350 separate documents were analyzed. 



The first step of analyzing a letter or other document was to code demographic information such as 
the commentator's place of residence. Next, the entire document was read to get a flavor of the 
meaning. Afterwards, the document was reread and each distinctive comment highlighted. The 
individual comments - a total of 3,200 - were then coded. Team members verified the reliability 
and validity of the coding process by independently coding each other's documents. The 
demographic and comment data were then entered into a database. 

Over half of the comments originated from correspondence, while 1475 comments were recorded at 
public workshops ~ either verbal comments or ones written on the response forms provided. Most 
of the correspondence (58 percent) came from individuals. Many organizations responded, often 
with highly detailed commentary. Environmental organizations accounted for 14 percent of the 
letters, compared to 12 percent from commercial business operations, including the timber industry. 

Sources of correspondence were mainly Oregon and Washington. Eastern Oregon and Washington, 
the geographic area directly within the scope of the EIS, generated 200 letters, or 57 percent of the 
correspondence; western Oregon and Washington generated 108, or 31 percent of the 
correspondence. Twenty-six letters, 7 percent of the correspondence, came from Idaho addresses, 
and the remaining 18 from other states. A content analysis of the comments produced three broad 
categories of issues: 

♦ Issues to be used in the development and analysis of EIS alternatives. These key study 
issues are described below. 

♦ Issues to be considered in other parts of the EIS process. These relate to development and 
implementation of the EIS, public participation, consultation and coordination, and issues shared 
with other Eastside project teams. These issues were considered during development of the EIS. 

♦ Issues beyond the scope of the EIS. These include issues that are outside the decision maker's 
authority, that fall under other agencies' jurisdiction, and that are beyond the charter for the 
project. These issues were catalogued and, where appropriate, transferred to the relevant agency. 



Issue Development 



The next, and critical step, was to develop an accurate, reasonable set of issues from the comments 
received during scoping. A preliminary report of Eastside issues was compiled and released on 
November 7, 1994. This report, which was widely circulated before the draft EIS was issued, 
included 12 issues, a description of the process used to develop them, and other background 
information. 

When the decision was made to write a similar EIS on ecosystem management for the upper 
Columbia Basin, another round of scoping was held in that region. A preliminary set of five issues 
in the upper basin was compiled at the end of that scoping process in April, 1995. 

Analysis of the two preliminary sets of issues revealed many similarities. Although some of the 
comments were specific to resources in the upper basin or the Eastside, people expressed many of 
the same overriding concerns about ecosystem management. For this reason, the two sets of issue 
statements were combined into a single set of seven issues. Each EIS will address these issues, 
although the descriptions of issues differ in each EIS based on the specific comments received. 

Here are the seven issues and how each encompasses the original 12 issues; the following section 
describes the seven issues in greater detail. 

Issue 1: In what condition should ecosystem be maintained? 

This issue is very close to original issue 1. but shifts the focus from restoration to a 
broader discussion of desirable ecosystem conditions. It also incorporates original 
issues 7 and 9-12, which were discussions of many of the specific ecosystem 



components, such as soil productivity. People commented that breaking out all of these 
individual conditions as separate issues appeared to be contraiy to views of ecosystems 
as functional units comprised of many resources and processes. 

Issue 2: To what degree, and under what circumstances, should restoration be active (with 
human intervention) or passive (letting nature take its course)? 

This is very similar to original issue 2. which used the term "intensity of management" 
to mean what actions would be undertaken to achieve desirable conditions, where they 
would be taken, and how fast changes would be made. 

Issue 3: What emphasis will be assigned when tradeoffs are necessary among resources, 
species, land areas, and uses? 

This issue contains elements of all original 12 issues by recognizing that ecosystems are 
complex; actions taken to improve the health of one ecosystem component may negatively 
affect another. The intent of this issue is to make people aware of these tradeoffs. 

Issue 4: To what degree will ecosystem-based management support economic and/or social 
needs of people, cultures, and communities? 

This is composed of original issues 3, 5 and 6 — employment opportunities, economic vitality 
of rural communities, and the relationship of public lands to the quality of peoples' lives. The 
new issue recognized that these social components should be considered as a unit. 

Issue 5: How will ecosystem-based management incorporate the role of natural disturbance 
processes? 

This is very similar to original issue 8. which emphasized the role of disturbance in 
ecosystem conditions and processes. 

Issue 6: What types of opportunities will be available for cultural, recreational, and 
aesthetic experiences? 

This contains elements of original issues 3, 5, and 6, but highlights amenity resources 
that are of growing social and economic importance in the project area. 

Issue 7: How will ecosystem-based management contribute to meeting trust and treaty 
responsibilities to American Indian tribes? 

This is very similar to original issue 4 with no change in the scope or intent. 

Issues Addressed in the EIS 

Following are the seven key EIS issues, along with explanations of why each is an issue and 
examples of the comments received that describe the issue in peoples' own words. These quotes 
are not intended to represent all comments received, but to show the range of opinions expressed 
by members of the public (some of the quotes included were received after completion of scoping). 

Issue It In what condition should ecosystems be maintained? 

Many people express a desire to restore ecosystems to conditions representative of earlier times in 
American history. They point to the extensive impacts of human development on natural systems 
in the Columbia Basin, defining this process as exploitation. They favor returning ecosystems to 
conditions closer to those that existed naturally (historical ranges of variability) . 

Other people hold the view that people are inextricably tied to ecosystems; anything people can do 
is therefore a part of ecosystem functioning and should be allowed - provided that outputs can be 
sustained over time. They favor ecosystems that are sustainable but geared toward multiple use, 
with ample provision for revenue and employment generating uses of public lands. 

There appears to be a good deal of agreement that many Columbia Basin ecosystems are out of 
whack, but people place the blame on different sources and seek different solutions. People have 






■ ■ : ■ :■ V 



varying standards about what level of human alteration of the landscape and natural systems is 
acceptable. People question our ability to agree on desired conditions to help design how the 
ecosystems should be restored. 

One frequently mentioned concern was the use and condition of riparian ecosystems. Some 
riparian ecosystems have been modified by agriculture, logging, grazing, recreation, mining, urban 
and rural development, and road construction across land ownerships. The structure, function, 
and species composition of riparian vegetation has been modified in many areas; these 
modifications have made changes in biodiversity, water filtering capabilities, floodplain capacity, 
thermal protection for streams, habitat for wildlife and fish, enjoyment by people, and nutrient flow 
for aquatic and terrestrial systems. People recognize that riparian conditions cannot be separated 
from upslope ecosystems or from instream conditions, requiring consideration of these 
interrelationships . 

Management practices have sometimes degraded water quality by changing the routing of water, 
sediment, nutrient and chemical levels, temperature, and amount and timing of water flow. This 
affects water availability for fish, wildlife, recreation, and many other uses. Cumulative impacts 
from non-public land management also affect water quality and quantity. There is disagreement 
over whether change should be measured against current or historic conditions to reach a desired 
future range of conditions. 

While there is general agreement that water and riparian systems are important and merit special 
management, there is controversy over the type and degree of protection and desired future 
conditions. PACFISH, for example, was criticized by many commentators as being overly 
prescriptive, seeking a one-size-fits-all solution for all localities with potentially different issues. 

Many people also expressed concern about ground disturbing activities (such as road building, 
logging, grazing, mining, recreation, and trails). These can alter soil conditions and processes 
(such as water infiltration, storage, and release) which are critical to ecosystem processes. Some 
people would like to see the amount of ground disturbing activity significantly reduced or 
eliminated completely. Ground disturbing activities have greater potential to affect soil attributes 
in some areas than in others. Some ground disturbing activities are culturally significant and 
contribute greatly to individuals' lifestyles and economic well-being. 

To meet social and biological needs, long-term direction is needed to establish the desired future 
range and mix of serai stages in forested and non-forested ecosystems across the landscape. 
Changing social values have shifted the demand and desire for vegetation in forested and non- 
forested ecosystems. Differences in public opinion exist on the desired range of conditions and 
how to achieve them. 

Sample Comments 

♦The natural functions of watersheds have been severely disrupted. Restoration and maintenance 
of essential functions while continuing to extract the resources they provide needs to be addressed. 

♦The goal of ecosystem management must be to restore and then maintain ecosystems in a self 
sustaining condition with all its species intact and managed to pass such a healthy 
environment on to future generations. 

♦ Ecosystems may be less resilient (unravel faster) than they used to. 

♦ Over the long-term, we cannot maintain ecological states that lie outside the range of 
natural variability. 

♦ Determine the rate of change within economic and resource limits required to bring ecological, 
biological, and physical conditions to a desired condition that meets resource management 
needs at a given point in time. 

♦ Define and monitor biodiversity indicators at various scales including management indicator species. 



'J- 



♦ Make sure that alternatives are socially able to provide opportunities for all people, are capable 
of producing products simultaneously, and create a description of the type of landscape that 
will satisfy these needs on a sustainable basis. 

♦Address the ability of watersheds to maintain hydrologic processes and resilience to extreme 
hydrologic events. 

♦ So it's still the same old wolf, now dressed in the sheep's clothing of 'ecosystem 
management'... I thought this whole ecosystem management process started because land 
managers realized they couldn't continue the same commodity emphasis without breaking 
environmental laws and trashing non-commodity resources, most of which have been pretty 
well trashed already. 

♦ Don't assume a static status will persist; pre-settlement conditions were constantly changing 
too. PACFISH is merely a bureaucratic wet dream calculated to make easy administration and 
maximum violations to support the agency egos. 

♦ Evidence from pre-settlement times that Native Americans "managed" ecosystems should be 
taken into consideration. 

♦Assess gaps and redundancies in protection afforded by existing natural areas. All ecosystem 
types should be represented within protected natural areas. 

Issue 2: To what degree, and under what circumstances, should 
restoration be active (with human intervention) or passive (letting 
nature take its course)? 

Some people believe that public lands should be left as undisturbed as possible, allowing "nature to 
take its course," because these lands serve a primary function as reservoirs of biological resources. 
Others believe that Forest Service and BLM lands should be used to the fullest extent possible, as 
long as productivity and other biological functions are sustained. 

This situation has been characterized by some respondents in the EIS scoping process as "passive" 
versus "active" management. There is debate over humans' ability to understand ecosystems and 
their resiliency, which would allow us to effectively restore them. Some people believe we know 
what we need to, to at least solve the most pressing problems, while others point to a history of ill- 
conceived management projects as proof that we may never know enough about ecosystem 
functioning to create and sustain ecosystem health over the long-term. 

There were generally four viewpoints: 

1. Active management is desirable. Some commentators think we should actively manage to 
restore ecosystems in all areas, including roadless areas, because it is the only way to maintain 
conditions within the historic range of variability. Some believe that without active 
management, the opportunity for ecosystem restoration is lost. Failure to manage vegetation 
results in catastrophic fires and other processes that can waste valuable resources. Harvesting, 
thinning, and prescribed burning are acceptable techniques to reduce stocking levels. Without 
active management of riparian areas, declining species will continue to decline. Passive 
management precludes options for future generations, and prevents society from gaining the 
economic benefits of timber harvest and other restoration activities. 

2. Active management is desirable, but not all management techniques are acceptable. Some 
commentators favor prescribed fire, but feel that mechanical harvesting and associated impacts 
are unacceptable and that logging is not the ecological equivalent of fire. Others feel that fire is 
overemphasized as a solution, saying that past logging practices led to present conditions. 
Impacts to air quality are a concern if prescribed fires are increased or if more natural wildfires 
are allowed to burn. 



3. Active management is desirable, but not in all areas, and should be limited to currently roaded 
areas. Roadless areas should be left intact for wildlife and people, and allowed to recover on 
their own. Passive management ~ allowing nature to take its course ~ is favored where appropriate. 

4. Passive management is the only acceptable strategy: human management and intervention is 
what caused current problems in the first place. We don't have enough knowledge of 
ecosystems to restore them without having unintended or undesired effects; nature knows best. 
Catastrophic fires are natural in some ecosystems and should be allowed to return, along with 
other disturbances. Forests can restore themselves given enough time and lack of human 
intervention. Once ecosystems are restored, benefits to humans and other species will increase 
and be sustainable over time. 

Sample Comments 

♦The words "intensive human management" scare hell out of me as the high impacts of the past have 
been described with similar words. A lot of soft touch management would make this a viable concept. 

♦The cost of restoring ecosystems to desired conditions is enormous and you're probably never 
going to get back anything near what you started with, especially in the eyes of an ecologist. 

♦ It's scientifically debatable whether we can restore ecosystems. "Enhance" seems arrogant, 
assuming we can improve upon nature. 

♦ Public lands should be intensively managed to provide a steady flow of goods and services. 

♦ Nature and natural processes are far more effective and dependable than are bureaucratic 
tinkering or so-called 'active' management procedures. 

♦ The challenge is to explore a wide range of management strategies that display our knowledge 
of the ecosystem... a continuum from light active management through intensive active 
management. Good ecosystem management can provide for many objectives. 

♦ Mother nature will provide if you allow it: mechanical (manmade) manipulation is not necessary. 

♦ Humans don't provide nature, they're part of it. Trust nature, and don't interfere with it. 

♦ This should guarantee many government jobs ~ when I die I want to come back as an 
endangered species. 

♦The Forest Service and BLM have caused many of the problems that are occurring in our 
forests. There is no reason to believe that intensive management will fix them, especially when 
the Forest Service has continually refused to monitor its previous management and learn from 
it. 

Issue 3: What emphasis will be assigned when tradeoffs are 
necessary among resources, species, land areas, and uses? 

People are concerned about the costs and tradeoffs of restoration. Some people believe it is our 
responsibility to care for all of the "pieces" of the ecosystem, and actions should be taken to restore 
damaged areas. Others share this belief but only to the extent that actions taken are cost-effective. 

Federal land managers have long operated under the multiple-use philosophy, but controversy 
exists over the intensity of management, the dominance of particular uses, and how these uses are 
distributed over time and space. Some people believe that management of public lands should 
generate financial wealth for society, and that benefits should exceed expenditures borne by taxpayers. 

Others believe that the most significant benefits generated from public lands are not financial, but 
are often non-market environmental services enjoyed by a much broader public. This latter group 
believes that society is willing to pay for environmental quality in a variety of ways. 






Some people say that use of public lands should be restricted to "nonconsumptive" uses while 
others believe that extraction of resources, or "consumptive" use, provides a wider range of 
benefits. Previous management efforts on public lands have attempted to strike a balance of uses 
over a given administrative area. Perceptions vary regarding the effectiveness of these efforts. 

There also is controversy over whether declining species should be given top priority and focus for 
recovery, or whether the ecosystem in its entirety should be managed with equal emphasis. The 
controversy includes questions about which resources and species should be given focus, and what 
aspects or locations of ecosystems are most important. Support for endangered species protection 
remains strong both inside and outside the Columbia basin, but more people believe that social 
and economic costs should be weighed in protection decisions. 

Some people commented that streams and riparian areas should have the highest priority for 
restoration. Others believe that the ecological importance of unroaded areas is key and should be 
given top priority. Some people feel that economic needs should receive priority. Others believe 
that healthy ecosystems ultimately produce the greatest level and types of benefits to humans. 

People recognize the inherent contradictions among many of these sets of values, but believe that 
finding a better balance is possible. 

Sample Comments 

♦ Prioritize unhealthy ecosystems for restoration based on their restoration potential, and avoid 
further exacerbating ecosystem health problems. 

♦ Conflicts between national public interest and local interests need to be addressed. 

♦ Each use should be placed on a par with the others... to balance the competing needs of all the 
multiple uses on public lands. 

♦Where conflicts occur sustaining ecosystems must have highest priority because humans and 
societies can adapt. 

♦ Focus must be on dependable supplies of commodities and amenities. 

♦ Restore impaired lands and leave virgin lands undisturbed. 

♦ Remove all land use practices that negatively affect aquatic ecosystems. 
♦Viability of all native species should be a top priority. 

♦ We must swing the pendulum of relentless industrial abuse of our ecosystem towards 
restoring the environment we all depend on for life itself. 

♦ We already have a diversity of animals, plants, and habitats. Don't try to fix what doesn't need 
fixing. 

♦ Indigenous species should be the focus; prevention of listing is very important and would be 
cost-efficient in the long run. 

♦There is little consideration of equity in the distribution of benefits from the use of public 
lands. 

♦ Public lands can provide some amenities and commodities, but it's not the job of federal 
managers to maximize these. 

♦ Determination of appropriate buffers to control sediment transport and delivery is dependent 
on landform and climatic conditions that vary drastically. Determination of appropriate sized 
riparian habitat conservation areas are essential to ensure that riparian ecological values are 
maintained or enhanced to protect the quality of anadromous fish habitat. 

♦ Grassland health problems such as caused by numerous non-native aggressive plants are 
equally important as forest health problems. 

... :.:::::::::::.:..:: : ."."","".'.'. ".'.:.. ' . '"'.... • 

: :^: :v:v::::^:^^ : : ■ ::■■:■■ ■ ■ 



♦ Ecosystem management should be implemented at the least cost for the benefit of the 
American taxpayer. 

♦ In the light of inevitable uncertainties and changing information, assumptions should be 
conservative to leave a margin of error to ensure viability of species and ecosystems. 

♦ It may be impossible to set goals for attaining natural ranges of variability in all cases due to 
social, economic, or biological factors. 

Issue 4: To what degree will ecosystem based management 
support economic and/or social needs of people, cultures, and 
communities? 

Public lands have traditionally contributed to local, regional, and broader economies in many ways. 
Many people who participated in scoping commented that the economic vitality of many rural 
communities in the basin depends on the supply of marketable goods and services provided by 
public lands. These include both traditional industries and newer ones that have recently gained 
importance in the interior Columbia Basin. 

Public lands can support jobs both directly and indirectly, although the number of available jobs 
also depends on other forces such as markets, economic climate, and the technological level of 
particular industries. 

There are those that feel that use of public lands should continue to support the creation and 
maintenance of jobs, while others believe that jobs should not be driving management of public lands. 

Many have the perception that jobs in some natural resource industries such as timber or mininghave 
a higher wage scale than average service industry jobs that could be created by increased tourism. 

Some people believe that the federal government has an obligation to support the economic vitality 
of certain rural communities through predictable access to resources on public lands. This 
perception is strongest, when communities are located close to public lands and have economies 
which have depended on flows of federally managed commodities. Others believe that there is no 
Forest Service or BLM mandate to contribute to rural communities and that access to federally 
owned natural resources should not be guaranteed. 

Public lands are exempt from property taxes, instead making payments to local governments 
through various mechanisms; revenues to local governments from federal land are tied largely to 
the value of commodity extractions. Many rural communities depend heavily on this money to 
provide infrastructure and service needs. 

Because ecosystems do not coincide with administrative or political boundaries, management 
decisions on lands managed by the Forest Service and BLM need to consider activities and 
ecosystem conditions under other jurisdictions. This causes concern over the effects that decisions 
on lands managed by the Forest Service or BLM may have on private lands. Some people view 
ecosystem management as a federal government attempt to control private lands. 

People also recognize that many federal land management agency employees and their families live 
in these rural communities, are taxpayers too, and thus have the dual role of community resident 
and federal employee. 

Sample Comments 

♦ I would like to see a concept that minimizes the economic benefits that just help a few 
people and maximizes improving ecosystem health; if economic benefits will result, they 
should be for many people. 






♦ Federal land managers must be held accountable if their actions needlessly harm economics of 
local areas. 

♦We need... predictable outputs from federal lands. Businesses, communities, and individuals 
need some stability of the resources that they are dependent on. 

♦A preferred alternative... will establish a healthy and fully functioning ecosystem, but will also 
allow for commodity extraction in a controlled manner... A transition period should be 
established to avoid fast radical changes in management. 

♦ Long-term ecosystem health is the only way to protect the economic viability of rural, resource 
dependent communities. 

♦ Show economic benefits of a quality environment in attracting new business, industries, and 
people to an area. 

♦ We need to utilize our natural resources at a sustainable rate and manage them for the 
greatest possible flow. Without the lumber, cattle and mining industries our lives would not 
be the same. 

♦ Commodities and resiliency are unrelated-diversification leads to resiliency. 

♦ Forest management plans must provide predictable levels of timber harvest so as to even out 
the wide swings in lumber prices that destabilize the home building industry. 

♦ Include social and economic health as part of ecosystem health. 

♦ Since dying communities are a fact of life, it makes little sense to continue shoring up forest dependent 
communities at the expense of using up the last remnants of bits and pieces of ecosystems. 

♦ Discuss how commodity production will be modified or reduced when funding for proper 
management and monitoring is not available. 

♦ Consider the future of rural communities and their economies, including Tribal communities. 

♦ Need to show expected levels of resource outputs (timber harvest, grazing capacity, mineral 
extraction, etc.). 

♦ Changes in resource outputs from public lands will affect families, businesses, and 
communities. 

♦ Small communities need a smooth transition to a new economic environment. 

♦Take a look at the below cost timber sale situation. 

♦The growth of the human population changes the structure and the relationship of 
communities to the land. 

♦The rights of private landowners are strongly valued by rural residents. 

♦ Evaluate effects on private lands from management actions on aquifers that cross public and 
private land boundaries. 

♦ Set fees at market value. 

♦ There should be a concerted effort to attempt to predict sustainable timber harvest levels. 

♦ The agencies should be able to predict harvest levels, based on the number of acres needed to 
achieve the (Eastside) strategy's desired condition(s). If this strategy is fiscally probable, then 
timber industiy should feel reasonably assured that predicted outputs will be achieved. 

♦ Discuss use of livestock grazing management to achieve ecosystem objectives, including timing 
and duration of use, right to continue grazing, stewardship, utilization levels, alternative 
grazing systems to meet resource objectives, and rangeland conditions. 

♦There is a lack of recognition of minerals as a critical element of human survival and, hence, 
the ecosystem. 



♦ Priority should be given to those practices which provide jobs, products, and stability to the 
small rural communities which depend on public lands for their way of life. 

♦ First we should determine the amount of timber we can harvest in an environmentally and 
ecologically sound manner. Then we can determine how our nation can live with that amount 
of timber-no matter what it is. 

♦ Examine federal programs for value added products. 

♦ Land should pay for itself and be productive. 

♦ Pursue other revenue sources to make up for large scale reductions in timber receipts, 
including increasing user fees, and removing tax incentives for log exports. 

♦ Compensate anyone impacted by options selected. Government created the dependency and 
should compensate impacted parties until they can make transition from natural resource 
reliance. 

♦The government should earmark the allocation of resources back to the counties to meet 
ecological objectives. 

Issue 5: How will ecosystem based management incorporate the 
interactions of natural disturbance processes across the 
landscape? 

Research reports such as the Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment expressed concerns 
over the suppression of fire and other natural disturbance regimes, preventing their role in 
ecosystem health and community succession. People believe that this has altered the amount, 
distribution, and condition of late serai and old growth forests on the eastside of the Cascades, 
compared to historic conditions. 

Resulting forest conditions have left many areas susceptible to disturbances that many define as 
catastrophic and far outside natural conditions and processes. Habitat may not be available to 
meet species viability needs, especially threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, both basin 
wide and at smaller scales. Introduced plants, including noxious weeds, have spread due to 
human caused disturbances, and threaten all native plant communities. 

Some people support the use of fire as a means to achieve management objectives but others are 
concerned that success is not guaranteed and that prescribed fires sometimes gets out of control. 
There is also concern that wildfire suppression over the last half century has resulted in vegetation 
conditions that contribute to larger fires today. Understanding of air quality tradeoffs between 
prescribed fire and wildfires is poor. There is disagreement over the use of prescribed fire to 
achieve ecosystem objectives and the role that fire plays in ecosystem function. 

The quality of the air we breath and the visibility of landscapes are important to the American 
public. Activities implemented on public lands must meet air quality standards and regulations 
such as those required by the Clean Air Act and State Implementation Plans. Some activities 
currently being used to achieve objectives on lands managed by the Forest Service or BLM call for 
the use of prescribed fire. Smoke is generally considered to be the most significant factor affecting 
air quality and visibility. 

Part of this issue also relates to our society and its "urbanization" of areas that experience frequent 
occurrences of natural fire ignitions. The effects of fire on private property in wildland-urban interface 
areas is another central concern about fire. Some people moved to these areas to get away from the air 
quality problems associated with urban areas: they, as well as others, are concerned with the amount, 
timing, and duration of smoke generated by fire, whether natural or prescribed. 



■■ : --v--v v -v- : --'v. : '-- ; --- : -.-..-:-- :, ::-.'- : :-: "'-"-■- ' -.-. ■ ■ 



There is disagreement about the use of timber harvest activities to mimic natural disturbances; 
some people expressed concern that ecosystem management was just a new excuse to keep 
cutting too many trees. The current debate over the costs and benefits of salvage logging is a 
related controversy. 

Sample Comments 

♦ Address the impacts of avoiding, controlling, and recovering from natural catastrophes. 

♦ Health should include all components, including insects and disease which are parts of 
ecosystems too. 

♦The Inland Forest ecosystems are the result of disturbance. There was never a "balance of 
nature." 

♦ Determine whether silvicultural practices can be used to restore and maintain healthy 
riparian area vegetation. 

♦ Naturally occurring burns are important in the ecology of the forest and clearcuts can take 
their place. 

♦ Evaluate the role of corridors, core areas, old growth buffers, connectivity and habitat refugia 
as wildlife habitat. 

♦ Reevaluate eastside spotted owl habitat and appropriateness of Federal Ecosystem 
Management Assessment Team guidelines on the eastside. 

♦There is doubt that human management can replace or duplicate natural disturbance 
processes. Compare effects of natural fire frequencies and seasonal timing, Native American 
generated fires, and current prescribed burning fire regimes on species composition. 

♦ Compare the role of natural fire in maintaining forested ecosystems with the effect of 
prescribed fire or timber harvest (salvage operations). 

♦Analyze the tradeoff between impacts of various levels of prescribed fire program emissions vs. 
impacts of wildfire emissions through time. 

♦Address carbon dioxide emissions from harvesting wood from the eastside area; consider 
impacts of using potential substitute products such as aluminum, steel, concrete, and 
compare impacts of obtaining wood from the eastside area versus elsewhere in the world. 

♦ Quantify impacts on air quality in wilderness areas from silvicultural practices. 

Reintroduction of fire into ecosystems may meet some resistance, including smoke 
management concerns. 

Issue 6: What types of opportunities will be available for 
cultural, recreational, and aesthetic experiences? 

Public lands affect the quality of people's lives in many ways. Some people value public lands for 
the features they offer in terms of natural beauty, purity, and open spaces. Others value the lands 
for the material outputs that help to sustain their adopted lifestyle. People also value public lands 
for the conditions that they wish to see maintained, not just for their own sake but for future 
generations, or simply to allow wild things to exist irrespective of their use by humans. 

Public lands provide a full spectrum of recreation opportunities and possess scenic qualities that 
act as catalysts to reinforce friendships, reduce stresses, and supply sanctuary for spiritual 
renewal. People become attached to places that have special meaning to them, and to which they 
return for generations; the appearance and stability of these places is part of a cherished lifestyle. 

People and businesses sometimes settle close to public lands because they value natural settings 
or outdoor recreation and the accompanying rural western lifestyle. Increases in human 

" . .'.'...' ..' '..'.' . V . . . . . 



population and other social factors such as an aging population create pressures on locations close 
to public lands. 

Public lands provide many opportunities for people to express and define themselves, either as 
individuals or as members of distinctive cultural groups. The lifestyles of these individuals and 
groups generate traditions that are important to people, and many people value a high level of 
diversity among cultural groups. 

There is considerable debate on whether or not the cultural characteristics and traditional 
practices of distinctive groups should be sustained. Management of public lands can affect the 
capability of cultural groups to persist or adapt to changing conditions. 

Sample Comments 

♦ Public land uses and outputs affect the quality of life as perceived by residents. 

♦ Rural communities should maintain rural character with good zoning laws and ordinances 
based on sound science and considering native ecology. Recreation and sustainable 
economies should be pursued. 

♦ Recreational opportunities should not mean more roads and development. 
♦Target opportunities where people can gather to understand and enjoy nature. 

♦ Let nature run its course and people will find ways to enjoy it. 

♦ Keep focus away from motorized recreation. 

♦ Changes in the use of public land within eastern Oregon and Washington will affect cultural 
groups, such as ranchers, Native Americans, farmers, Hispanics, and miners. 

♦ Define and protect Tribal quality of life, which includes historical perspectives, culture, 
religion, and economics. 

♦ Many visitors to public lands seek the experience of solitude for spiritual renewal. 

♦ Retain access for existing uses (recreation, trapping, hunting etc.). 

♦ Gathering of special forest products such as mushrooms and berries is an important 
recreational activity and may present conflicts with commercial special use permits for the 
same products. 

♦ Charge users for non-commodity uses. 

♦ Enhance opportunities for road access. 

Issue 7: How will ecosystem based management contribute to 
meeting trust and treaty responsibilities to American Indian tribes? 

American Indian tribes retain rights and privileges under treaties negotiated with the United States 
Government. Case law has recognized the responsibility for federal agencies to protect off- 
reservation tribal assets that occur on public lands. 

The federal government operates on a government-to-government basis with American Indians. 
American Indians have a special relationship by virtue of their treaties and the sovereign status of 
tribal governments. 

Tribal interests in the management of resources sometimes conflicts with the interests of other 
cultural perspectives. For example, management of plants that occur in the forest understory is 
sometimes more significant to tribes than it is to those who place the highest value on managing 
trees in the forest overstory. 



«'-«;;« 



Some people feel that tribal groups should be treated no differently than other interest groups in 
the population, while others believe that the federal government should place the highest priorities 
on the resource needs of American Indians. 

Sample Comments 

♦ Harvestable crops of fish are decreasing so much that Native Americans and other traditional 
user groups cannot continue their cultural and economic practices. 

♦The federal government has trust obligations to Native Americans to support their rights and 
uses of public lands that are identified in various treaties. 

♦The harvest of surplus production of native species is a traditional use of resources by Native 
Americans. 

♦ Need to get cultural and spiritual definitions, values and significance from each Tribe. 

♦ Economic considerations are also important for the life and livelihoods of the Tribes. 

♦ Federal agencies have ethical responsibilities to recognize sacred sites and spiritual values. 

♦ Minimum viable populations are not sufficient for Tribes: require harvestable levels of native 
species. 

♦ Some listed noxious weeds include native plants important to Native American Tribes. 
♦Address historic use by Native Americans of fire management, including their methods. 

♦ Consider all Native American needs including extending the bison range to historic proportions 
where possible. 

♦Allowing tribes unlimited fishing and hunting harvest won't help restore populations. Time 
and conditions change - may need to enter into new agreements to provide best natural 
resource management that's attainable. 



m ;e™;i'i™^^^^ 



Appendix 1-5 

Benefits and Risks of 

the Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix B) 




This Appendix contains 
the following items: 

• Joint Agency Cover Letter 

• White Paper on the 

Benefits and Risks of 
the ICBEMP 






mM-r EIS/Appkxdix I-5/Page 123 



■■'•'■'■■■■■"■■''■■■"-■■■■■-■■•■■■•■■ *sT£»?§53S &*■■&£ 3 




Eastside EIS Team 
112 East Poplar Street 
Walla Walla, WA 99362 
(509)522-4030 
FAX: (509)522-4025 



Upper Columbia River 
Basin EIS Team 

304 N. 8th St., Room 250 
Boise, ID 83702 
(208)334-1770 
FAX: (208)334-1769 



Science Integration Team 
112 East Poplar Street 
Walla Walla, WA 99362 
(509)522-4030 
FAX: (509)522-4025 



File Code: 
Route to: 



(FS) 



1920 
1920 
(BLM) 1610 



Date: July 21, 1995 



Jack Ward Thomas, Ph.D., Chief 
USDA-Forest Service 
14th & Independence, S.W. 
P.O. Box 96090 
Washington, DC 20250 

Dear Chief Thomas and Director Dombeck: 



Mike Dombeck, Ph.D., Director 
USDI-Bureau of Land Management 
1 849 C Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20240 



The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICEMP) was initiated at your request to 
respond to President Clinton's July 1993 direction to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem based 
strategy for eastside forests. Specifically, the Project responds to several critical broad scale issues, 
including, but not limited to, forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, and 
protection of bull trout. A Scientific Assessment and two Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) are 
being prepared to present and evaluate new information about these and other issues, to lead to 
responsive decisions and integrate new information into 74 land management plans throughout the Basin. 

Questions have been raised in Congress and elsewhere about the need and rationale for the EIS portion of 
the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. In order to answer these questions, a 
"white paper" has been drafted to inform parties who have expressed concerns or reservations about the 
Project. The paper details the relative risks and benefits of the EISs in responding to ecosystem, legal, 
social and economic requirements. 

The Executive Steering Committee for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 
submits the enclosed white paper for your review and recommend it be used by our agencies to explain 
the Project and respond to inquiries. 



Sincerely, 





RTHAI 
'State Direct6r-j4daho 
Bureau of Land Management 



Enclosure 



■■■■::.... ' 



Benefits and Risks of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project 

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) was initiated by the 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to respond to several critical broad scale 
issues including, but not limited to, forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, 
and protection of bull trout. A Scientific Assessment will evaluate new information about these 
and other issues. Two Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) will disclose information so that 
decisions can respond to issues and needs and replace, where appropriate, interim conservation 
strategies in up to 74 land management plans in the Basin. 

There are four primary reasons for approaching the broader natural resource and related 
community issues with the method used in the ICBEMP approach: 

* Issues like forest and rangeland health, Snake River salmon and bull trout can best be 

addressed at a regional level because the issues transcend administrative boundaries; 



'a* 



* Experience, research, and legal precedence have demonstrated a scientifically sound, 
ecosystem-based approach can better deal with these issues, where interrelated actions and 
effects are disclosed and incorporated into integrated management strategies; 

* Addressing certain issues from a larger context is more cost effective than separate units 
conducting independent efforts; 

* This approach responds to President Clinton's July 1993 direction to develop a scientifically 
sound, ecosystem based strategy for eastside forests. 

L Background 

Since most current National Forest and BLM management plans have been in effect, 
ecological and socio-economic conditions have been changing. Increased scientific understanding 
of ecosystem processes and functions has led to better awareness that many forest, range, riparian, 
and aquatic ecosystems are becoming less resilient. Some plant and animal species populations 
dependent on these ecosystems are declining in numbers. 

Undesirable effects on people from current conditions include declining and less predictable 
Federal timber availability and increasing competitive forces in the forest products industry, 
contributing to greater instability in employment for forest products workers. Livestock operators 
have been adversely affected by declining rangeland health and productivity. Declines in water 
quality, anadromous fish populations, species population viability, and access to some natural 
resources have reduced opportunities for many users of Forest Service and BLM lands, including 
the rights retained by Indian tribes. 

One expression of public discontent with federal land management is more frequent and 



,,.,,:, ..,,:,.-:■.,,,■,:;,:.:■■, 



aggressive administrative appeals and litigation, often involving larger areas and more complex 
issues. Appeals and lawsuits over Forest Service and BLM land management decisions, plans, and 
activities reflect an evolution in attitudes, beliefs, and values regarding resource conditions. 
Increasingly, appeals and lawsuits have focused on issues of broad scale, such as species viability, 
biodiversity, and cumulative effects, which have been difficult to successfully address because of 
the absence of a truly broad-scale dimension to BLM and Forest Service land management planning. 

Even more significantly, the federal courts have been willing to enjoin the activities of the 
federal government over large geographic areas, e.g. Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons, Portland 
Audubon Society v. Lujan, Lane County Audubon Society v. Jamison, and Pacific Rivers Council v. 
Thomas. The courts are expecting the federal government to address issues concerning broad- 
ranging species in planning level decisions of comparable scope. For instance, in Lane County 
Audubon Society v. Jamison, the Ninth Circuit held that a biological opinion had to be prepared on a 
broad-ranging plan to conserve the northern spotted owl, and not limit a biological opinion on the 
species covering all of BLM's timber sales. In the meantime. Judge Dwyer in the Seattle Audubon 
Society litigation enjoined the Forest Service timber sale program in the range of the- northern 
spotted owl until there was not only a multi-regional plan in place, but also a multi-agency plan 
(including the BLM) in place. 

Updating National Forest or BLM Resource Area plans concurrently is necessary if the 
federal government is to respond to broad issues in a timely and efficient manner and provide a 
rational basis for land management decisions. As evidenced by federal district court approval of the 
FEMAT strategy, this approach can work. PACFISH, Eastside Screens, and the proposed Inland 
Native Fish Strategy are interim strategies which respond to new conditions such as a species listing 
under the Endangered Species Act, and are designed to bridge the time gap between existing plans 
and adoption of long-term strategies. The Project will develop a scientific assessment, and two EISs 
and Records of Decision (RODs) based on a broad scale scientific assessment, one for the Upper 
Columbia River Basin, and one for the Eastside 1 . The RODs will simultaneously amend BLM 
Resource Area plans, National Forest plans, Forest Service Regional Guides, and provide for 
simultaneous consultation with regulatory agencies on plan amendments including replacing interim 
strategies such as PACFISH. 



-o x 



II. Risks and Benefits of the Project 

Questions have been raised in Congress and elsewhere about whether the ICBEMP decision 
process is the proper method or strategy to address these broad scale issues. 2 The U.S. House of 



The Eastside EIS covers BLM and Forest Service lands in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. The Upper 
Columbia River Basin EIS covers BLM and Forest Service lands within the Columbia River Basin in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 
Utah and Wyoming (Figure 1). 

i 

"U.S. Senator Larry Craig, in an April 21, 1995, letter to Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, Chief, Forest Service, stated, "I have 

come to the conclusion that there is merit to conducting ecoregion assessments to evaluate issues and concerns that arise on an 

ecosystem or regional basis .... However, neither the nature or purpose of these ecoregion assessments as described, nor their 

structure as they are being presently carried out, suggest that they can properly be used as decision-making tools." 









Representatives has voted to terminate the Project before its planned completion. The report 
language with the legislation states that despite collecting important scientific information, "The 
Project has grown too large and too costly to sustain in a time of fiscal constraints and is drawing 
away personnel and funding that should be employed for on the ground management." 

This White Paper responds to these concerns and perceived risks because they appear to be 
the ones which have influenced the decisions to oppose completion of the Project. There are, no 
doubt, other concerns about the Project that are not addressed in this paper. 

Responses to Risks and Concerns: 

1 . Loss of local control. 

Concern: This concern seems grounded in the way the Forest Ecosystem Management 
Assessment Team's (FEMAT) proposed plans were changed at the national level to address the 
old-growth timber/northern spotted owl issue. Additionally, interim strategies such as PACFISH, 
Eastside Screens and the Inland Native Fish Strategy are perceived to be imposed without 
satisfactory public participation. There is a perception that local control and influence are 
diminished when planning is done at a broad scale and could be subject to review at the national 
level. 

Response: Deciding officials for the ICBEMP RODs are locally based, and include the 
Forest Service Regional Foresters and BLM State Directors from the Project area. The FEMAT 
Project deciding officials were the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior. The Project EISs have 
more time to ensure extensive public participation to replace the interim strategies. 

A Memorandum of Understanding will soon be signed by the ICBEMP Project leaders and 
the Eastside Coalition of Counties (EECC), the latter representing the respective Associations of 
Counties in the states of Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, to further strengthen the role of 
local government in the Project. In a June 30, 1995 letter to U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield, the 
Association of Oregon Counties states: 



U.S. Senator Slade Gorton has indicated in the Walla Walla Union Bulletin, June 29, 1995, he opposes "anything that 
takes a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach," and that rather than an over-arching study that looks at all federal land in the 
interior Northwest, there should be "watershed-by-watershed" studies that take into account specific local conditions. 

U.S. Rep George Nethercutt, in a May 1 1, 1995, letter to U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio. suggests that "The 
combined cost and contentiousness of implementing the resulting regulations from this study will yield little if any environmental 
benefits for this region." He also was quoted in the Spokane Spokesman Review, June 5, 1995, as saying, "There are no tangible 
results that give us any hope that the money has been well spent so far. I think we have to have some accountability here." 




Eastern 

Oregon/Washington 

Environmental Impact 

Statement Area 



Upper 

Columbia River Basin 

Environmental Impact 

Statement Area 



\ 



Figure 1 



HHHf k ■ 1 

. . . ■ ■ 



::■ ...-.: -V": -:V: 






"This is the first time a multi-state county group has participated directly and from 
the beginning in a significant federal resource management planning process. There 
will likely be a positive impact on the federal work product, and a foundation has 
been laid for genuine, long-term improvements in federal/county communication. 
The National Association of Counties is following progress closely, because EECC is 
creating the model for county involvement in other regions." 

In addition, the ICBEMP Project leaders have initiated dialogue with the states of Oregon, 
Washington, Idaho and Montana and requested that each Governor designate representatives with 
authority to advise the Project on matters important to the states as now allowed under the recent 
amendment to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) by the Unfunded Federal Mandates 
legislation. This is a great opportunity for county, state, federal and tribal cooperation which can 
depolarize the divided opinions about conservation and management that now exists. 

Flexibility in achieving the goals and objectives of the ICBEMP decision will still be 
retained at the National Forest and Resource Area levels for project decisions and monitoring. 

2. Threat to Private property. 

Concern: The term "ecosystem management" appears to create an impression that both 
private and federal lands within a planning area will be subject to federal management. There are 
fears and concerns the Project puts private property and water rights at greater risk, especially as 
related to threatened and endangered species. 

Response: Neither the Forest Service nor the BLM regulates private lands. Nor is it the 
intent of the Project to affect private property or water rights. Decisions will apply only to lands 
administered by the Forest Service and the BLM, not state or private lands. The Project agencies 
will continue to respect State authority in water allocation and in water rights adjudication, such as 
the Snake River Basin Adjudication. 

3. "Master Switch" risk. 

Concern: There is a perception that the larger the area in a planning effort, and the more 
resources and people included, the higher the risk that activities in all areas affected by such 
planning could be stopped at one time by appeals and litigation. Some fear that a court injunction 
involving a broad scale planning decision could operate as a "master switch" making resources 
unavailable for use. Agencies are perceived to be in the process of creating such a "master switch" 
that would favor environmental litigants. 

Response: The master switch argument applied to this Project is invalid. The master switch 
has long existed, has already been used (Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons, Pacific Rivers Council v. 
Thomas) before this Project existed, and will be available (and more likely successful) if the Project 
EISs are stopped. The basic legislation covering National Forests and BLM lands provide citizens 
the right to litigate against what they believe are violations of existing law. In other words, the 
"wiring" for the master switch is fully in place in extant federal laws and court interpretations. 



Critics apparently assume legal insufficiency in the decisions to be made. Broad scale 
decisions will be made in light of recent legal standards for sufficiency, reducing the risk that 
decisions will be found lacking legally. If site-specific decisions were to be the general outcome of 
the Project, then the problem of legal sufficiency might be more difficult. This will not be the case, 
however. Most decisions will focus on broad or regional issues, with solutions stated as goals, 
objectives and guidelines, deferring site-specific fine scale decisions (with standards) to the project 
level. Furthermore, a "master switch" injunction would apply only if both existing management 
plans and decisions from the Project were found to be inadequate. Eliminating the Project EISs 
would remove the remaining line of defense against potential "master switch" injunctions. 

With simultaneous amendments and consultations applying appropriate direction at 
appropriate scales across jurisdictional boundaries, there will be more consistent direction for 
"issues of scale," disclosure of cumulative effects, and greater probability of legal sufficiency of 
decisions. With up to 74 separate plan amendments and consultations, there would be a greater 
likelihood of inconsistent direction and assessment of cumulative effects, leading to increased risks 
of litigation and injunctions. The agencies would be much more vulnerable to the charge of not 
responding to new information. Understanding the new information from the Scientific Assessment 
would likely be uneven among personnel spread throughout the agencies. In contrast, the Project 
EIS interdisciplinary teams are very familiar with the emerging science products and more suited to 
conduct the analysis. 

It is also a fact that a master switch operates in two directions, it can "turn on" just as it can 
shut down. By providing a legally sufficient basis for plan amendments with broad scale direction 
on issues such as species population viability, cumulative effects, and forest and range health, the 
Project can enable the agencies to maintain predictable, sustainable supplies of natural resources for 
people through turning the master switch to the "on" position. 

4. Unnecessary costs. 

Concern: There is a perception that the agencies have created a redundant layer of costly 
planning, with no prospects for efficiencies or savings in future planning. 

Response: Project EISs that focus on broad and mid scale planning issues with 
simultaneous amendment of multiple plans and programmatic consultations will, at a minimum, be 
half as expensive as up to 74 separate plan amendments and consultations. In fact, expected 
efficiencies provided a significant part of the original justification for the project. Furthermore, 
Project costs are approaching 80 percent of the total planned for the three year Project life; the final 
20 percent will yield nearly all the benefits. 

Implementation of broad scale direction into individual Forest Service and BLM plans at the 
mid and fine scale levels will be cheaper since uniform goals, objectives and guidelines, with 
completed consultations, can be incorporated by reference rather than re-created time after time. 

5. Diminished "deliverability." 



Concern: Commodity outputs specified in existing plans have not been delivered for 
various reasons, affecting the credibility of the agencies' planning processes. Currently, National 
Forests in the Project area are producing less timber than their forest plans indicate is allowable. 
There is a perception that broad scale planning will further undermine the ability of National Forests 
to deliver outputs, and put people and resources at greater risk. 

Response: The ICBEMP should increase, not decrease, "deliverability" of natural resources, 
by removing or repairing conditions that have limited delivery in the past. Those conditions have 
been principally appeals and litigation related to "issues of scale" such as cumulative effects and 
species population viability. The quantity of appeals and litigation may not decline, but the 
efficiency of Forest Service and BLM responses and the probabilities of prevailing should increase 
significantly. This should increase the predictability and sustainability of natural resources and 
result in increased support for the economic and/or social needs of people, cultures and 
communities. 

6. "One size fits all." 

Concern: The agencies responded to the listing of the Snake River salmon by 
implementing the PACFISH interim conservation strategy. Some perceive that detailed and 
inaccurate constraints and imprecise management were imposed (through PACFISH, Eastside 
Screens and the proposed Inland Native Fish Strategy), rather than letting managers deal with 
specific local conditions at the project level. The perception seems to be that the Project will extend 
rather than limit or resolve problems with the perceived "one size fits all" approach of PACFISH. 

Response: The ICBEMP EISs and RODs will change interim direction, to more flexible 
broad and mid landscape ecosystem-based long-term strategies, to complement fine scale direction 
where applicable (e.g., PACFISH and Eastside Screens). The approach of the Project is to include 
less prescriptive "one size fits all" direction at the project or fine scale level, leaving those decisions 
to local managers. Most decisions will focus on broad and mid-scale problems, with solutions 
stated mostly in the form of goals, objectives and guidelines. This approach will help streamline 
consultation with resource agencies, as requested by the Idaho Congressional delegation in a March 
31, 1994 letter to the Project. 3 Fine scale decisions (with standards) at the project level, after 
appropriate watershed analysis, will reduce the need for general application of standards which may 
be inaccurate and inappropriate for some locations. 

7. Authority. 

Concern: Allegations have been made that the agencies have exceeded their legal 
authorities by conducting the Project at a broad geographic scale. 

Response: The decision in Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons affirmed that the agencies 



"The letter from US Senator Larry Craig, US Senator Dirk Kempthorne and Congressman Mike Crapo recommended 
including the effort to streamline consultation with the Idaho PACFISH EIS, now superseded by the Upper Columbia River 
Basin EIS. 



have the discretion to address their land and resource plans using a broad scale, ecosystem approach. 

Conclusion. The ICBEMP, through the Scientific Assessment, the Upper Columbia River 
Basin Project EIS the Eastside EIS and their Records of Decision will: 

-Develop "big picture" ecosystem management strategies that will strengthen multiple use 
management by providing sustainable resources for people; 

-Take definitive action in response to many critical issues of broad scale (e.g., endangered 
species, species population viability, forest and range health, etc.) in one effort, saving 
money and time; 

-Offer solutions to forest and rangeland health problems, that will result in sustainable 
resources and jobs; 

-Refine PACFISH concepts with flexible approaches that will protect fish and other species 
and provide for needed management in both riparian and upland areas to keep ecological 
risks at acceptable levels; 

-Resolve broad "big picture" problems that cross jurisdictional lines (e.g., salmon) and refine 
and improve interim strategies (e.g., PACFISH); 

-Provide for species viability on an ecosystem basis, rather than with a species-by-species 
approach, thus reducing the chance of more listings and litigation; 

-Provide a great opportunity for county, state, federal and tribal cooperation which can 
depolarize divided opinions about conservation and management. 

Preparation of the broad-scale plans for the Interior Columbia Basin are expected to provide 
additional benefits: 

1. More effective analysis of cumulative impacts. Cumulative impact analysis can be more 
effectively addressed at a broad scale. Ecosystem health problems can be more successfully 
resolved by using the best available science to design plans dealing with these broad-scale issues. 
Looking at these issues on a basin-wide level allows the agencies to develop and prioritize goals 
among the various administrative units of the federal agencies. That opportunity would not be 
possible if each unit was required to develop its plan independently of other units. 

2. Reduced vulnerability to legal challenges. Legal challenges based on an alleged failure to 
disclose cumulative effects which cross the administrative boundaries of federal agencies are more 
easily defended when the agencies cooperate in broad-scale plans. If the agencies attempted to deal 
with the anadromous fish issue in separate planning efforts, either the agencies would end up 
coordinating much as they are now doing in the ICBEMP or they would spend far more time and 



money in largely duplicative and potentially inconsistent planning. If each administrative unit 
planned independently of other units, opponents of the decisions would undoubtedly exploit the 
inevitable inconsistencies between plans. The risk could be so great that a large number, if not all 
plans could be enjoined until a coordinated planning effort dealing with broad-scale issues was 
completed. 

3. More consistent and favorable regulatory agency consultations. If each administrative 
unit independently addressed the anadromous fish issue or other issues subject to regulation by other 
agencies, regulatory agencies would likely assume the "worst," i.e., that no further protection would 
be provided by other administrative units, unless plans for other units were already submitted for 
consultation. Courts also tend to make the same assumption (e.g., Seattle Audubon Society v. 
Mosely). This situation could lead to inconsistent treatment of agency plans by the regulating 
agencies. The Project EISs will avoid this problem. Alternatively, regulating agencies may also 
delay consultations on individual plans until all related plans are available. 

Conclusion. To the extent that the perceived risks of the ICBEMP are reasonably addressed and 
answered here, the benefits (stated above) remain. There remains a possibility that the Project is not 
entirely free of risk. Large scale injunctions from litigation based on unforseen events or new 
information might still occur, and all issues of large scale will not be perfectly resolved. But, 
without the assessment and EISs, these risks will be much greater, and critical and urgent issues 
such as the forest ecosystem health and anadromous fish problems will receive less quality attention. 

In short, the failure to complete the entire ICBEMP as currently planned, would place the 
natural resources and people in the interior Columbia River Basin at greater risk. 

The following sections provide documentation which support the above conclusions. 



The following sections provide additional information and analysis which support the 
response and conclusions in the first half of the paper. 

III. Background and Context 

Since most current National Forest and BLM management plans have been in effect, 
ecological and socio-economic conditions have been changing significantly. Forest and rangeland 
ecosystem health has been deteriorating, as evidenced by increasing occurrence of uncharacteristic 
insect and disease outbreaks, intense wildfires, and the spread of exotic plants. Concern about the 
future of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species has been increasing, as evidenced by 
additional listings under the Endangered Species Act and proposals for such listings. Some people 
and their customs and cultures in communities dependent on National Forest System and BLM 
administered lands have been placed at increasing risk through actual or potential reductions in 
timber supply related to declining tree health and to administrative appeals and lawsuits over 
broad-scale issues such as water quality, species viability, and cumulative effects. 

Increased scientific understanding of ecosystem processes and functions over the past decade 
has led to better awareness that many forest, rangeland, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems are 
becoming less resilient. Some plant and animal populations dependent on these ecosystems are 
declining in numbers. Cumulative human activities and management practices — such as timber 
harvest, fire suppression, pest suppression, livestock use, road construction, mining and waste 
disposal, flood control and irrigation, fish harvest and hatcheries, increased recreation use, and 
urban expansion -- have affected natural resource conditions. Short- and long-term ecological 
processes and functions have been altered. These alterations have changed regional landscapes and 
generally increased the risks from insects, disease and large-scale fires, and exotic plant invasions. 
There is concern that under continued current management, these systems cannot sustain the level 
and variety of demands being placed on them and still provide for ecological integrity and 
resiliency, biological diversity, and desired levels of economic and social development. 

Declines in forest and shrub and grassland ecosystem health are resulting in less resiliency 
and productivity for those depending on these resources. Declines in water quality, anadromous fish 
populations, species population viability, and access to some natural resources have reduced 
opportunities for many uses including customary and traditional uses by American Indians. They 
have also placed at risk the maintenance and protection of rights retained by Indian tribes. This also 
has had adverse effects on other segments of society who rely on benefits and services from 
National Forest and BLM lands. Declining ecosystem health conditions generally have increased 
the risk of large scale losses or damages to property, particularly from fire. Disruptions in the 
mosaic of successional stages created by natural disturbance events have resulted in a decline in the 
varied habitats and niches important for wildlife viewing, hunting, other forms of recreation and 
traditional cultural uses. Changes within the forests and rangelands have affected use patterns of 
certain wildlife species, sometimes creating adverse impacts on adjacent lands. 



10 



Undesirable effects on people from current conditions include declining and less predictable 
federal timber availability and increasing competitive forces in the forest products industry. These 
contribute to instability in employment for forest products workers. This has also contributed to 
economic and social hardships in communities with high employment in firms dependent on federal 
timber. Declining timber availability has affected people directly through job losses and less directly 
through predictable effects on government, especially county government with reduced funds for 
schools and roads. Declining and less predictable Federal timber availability has resulted from: (a) 
actual reductions of timber caused by declining forest health and (b) the challenges and complexities 
of meeting current regulations and policies in an ever-changing legal environment, especially in 
relation to broader issues such as ecosystem health, anadromous fish, and other wide-ranging 
species of concern. National and regional consequences have resulted from less predictability of 
resource flows from federal lands, with effects on the customs and cultures of communities 
dependent on public-land-based resources. 

One expression of public conflict with federal land management is more frequent and 
aggressive administrative appeals and litigation, often involving larger areas and more complex 
issues. A ten-fold increase in administrative appeals of Forest Service decisions since 1985 has 
occurred - from 200 to 2,000. The number of lawsuits has also increased significantly. In the 
years 1970 through 1989 the Forest Service was involved in 4.5 major NEPA-lawsuits per year. 
Between 1989-1995 the average increased to 1 1 NEPA related lawsuits per year. The nature of 
litigation has also shifted from individual development projects (like timber sales Or grazing 
allotments) to land use decisions and management over large geographic areas. 

The increasing number of appeals and lawsuits over Forest Service and BLM land 
management decisions, plans, and activities reflects an evolution in attitudes, beliefs, and values 
regarding healthy, productive, and well balanced resource conditions. Shifting demographic patterns 
and competing human values have intensified discussions and debate about the management of 
natural resources on public lands. The mix of goods and services historically provided by these 
lands may not reflect some values held important by some segments of the public. Increasingly, 
appeals and lawsuits have focused on issues of broad or large scale, such as species population 
viability, biodiversity, and related cumulative effects. Such litigation has been difficult to address 
because of the absence of a truly broad-scale dimension to BLM and Forest Service land 
management planning. Such broad- scale planning should provide the context for more effectively 
resolving these complex issues. 

The current status of plans compels an approach that addresses issues at levels broader than 
a single land unit such as a National Forest or BLM Resource Area. As of January 1995 there were 
54 lawsuits involving over 70 National Forest plans. Some of the cases are multi-National Forest 
challenges raising wildlife or fish issues that range beyond a single National Forest. Protection of 
wide ranging vertebrate species (including the northern spotted owl, Snake River salmon, bull trout, 
and grizzly bear), have been the principal issues in litigation of Forest Service and BLM decisions. 

Even more significantly, federal courts have enjoined the activities of the federal 



11 



; ■ 



Hi j j 



government on these larger planning area decisions, e.g., Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons, 
Portland Audubon Society v. Lujan, Lane County Audubon Society v. Jamison, and Pacific Rivers 
Council v. Thomas. The courts, particularly in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, expect the 
federal government to address broad-ranging species in planning decisions. For instance, in Lane 
County Audubon Society v. Jamison, the Ninth Circuit did not agree that the impacts to the spotted 
owl species as a whole had been adequately addressed in a biological opinion covering all of BLM's 
timber sales. The Court held that a biological opinion had to be prepared on a broad-ranging plan to 
conserve the listed species itself. In the meantime Seattle District Court Judge Dwyer, in the Seattle 
Audubon Society litigation, enjoined the Forest Service timber sale program within the range of the 
northern spotted owl until there was an adequate multi-regional and a multi-agency plan in place. A 
plan was rejected by him as inadequate in part because it did not include the BLM. He also was 
dissatisfied because the plan deferred consideration of other old growth associated species to 
individual National Forest plans. 

Several legal cases influenced the decision to plan at the broad scale to address the 
management of late-successional and old-growth forests within the range of the northern spotted 
owl. The precedent for multiple Forest Plan and BLM resource management plan amendments was 
affirmed in Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons 871 F. Supp. 1291. While the National Forest 
Management Act sets forth the process to develop individual forest plans, other laws- such as the 
Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act compel the agencies to address 
endangered species throughout their range. 

Important links exist between legal requirements and the role of scientific information. For 
example, in the Pacific Northwest, the Forest Service and the BLM were found in violation of 
federal laws and regulations for either failure to consider the most recent demographic information 
on the northern spotted owl (Seattle Audubon Society v. Moseley, 1992), or failure to assess in an 
Environmental Impact Statement new information on the owl (Portland Audubon Society v. Lujan, 
1992). A method is needed by which the agencies can respond to new scientific information in a 
timely and professional manner, include consultation with the public, and continue to function to 
produce goods and services. 

Litigation at the broad scale is also affecting the federal agencies within the Project area. Six 
National Forests in Idaho were simultaneously challenged in litigation over compliance with the 
Endangered Species Act in Pacific Rivers Council et al v. Thomas for failure to consult with the 
NMFS on each forest plan. This lawsuit followed similar litigation on two National Forests in 
Oregon. Several forest plans are challenged over protection of the viability of bull trout in Friends 
of the Wild Swan v. Thomas, questioning agency compliance with the National Forest Management 
Act regulations. 



12 



The administrative response to these changed conditions has been to address these issues at 
the appropriate geographic scale where resolution is possible. In many instances it is beyond the 
capability of single administrative units of the Forest Service and BLM to respond to and address 
issues of broad scale without careful coordination across administrative boundaries. The need to 
use current scientific knowledge to update current Forest Service / BLM management plans is also 
essential. Thus, in 1993 President Clinton directed the Forest Service to "develop a scientifically 
sound and ecosystem-based strategy for management of Eastside forests." To implement that 
direction, the chief of the Forest Service and the Director of the BLM jointly directed that a 
scientific assessment and related EISs be developed for the Interior Columbia Basin (See Figure 1). 

The foregoing discussion documents the compelling need for additional planning 
consideration and direction at the broad and mid- landscape levels to sufficiently address "issues of 
scale" such as population viability, cumulative effects and ecosystem health. Additional 
coordination across jurisdictional boundaries, including more than one National Forest or BLM 
Resource Area, is also needed for procedural compliance with federal laws. 

Planning efforts to date have focused mostly at National Forest and BLM Resource Area 
levels, with decisions related primarily to management direction in terms of specific land allocations 
and standards and guidelines that regulate projects. The Forest Service has also adopted "Regional 
Guide" standards and guidelines applicable at broader levels to guide development of individual 
forest plans. Considerations of important ecological processes and functions at "mid" and "broad" 
landscape levels have seldom been considered in either Regional Guides or forest plans. The 
"Broad and Mid Scale Planning Effort" embodied in the Project EISs will allow for decisions that 
focus primarily on management goals, objectives and guidelines to address ecosystem issues, 
processes, functions, and people at the broad and mid-scale levels. These decisions are necessary to 
repair deficiencies in current National Forest and BLM Resource Area planning and would 
constitute amendments to Regional Guides and Forest or BLM Resource Area plans. A comparison 
of scale and form of decisions for different planning levels for National Forests and BLM lands is 
shown in Figure 2. In a general sense, National Forest and BLM Resource Area level planning 
emphasizes standards and guidelines at the project or fine scale, while the Broad and Mid Scale 
Planning Effort places primary emphasis on goals, objectives and guidelines at the broad, landscape 
level. 



13 






■ ; ; ; .-: ; - : : : -^ : ^ 



:: ::F:::-::^my^- 



FIGURE 2. 



A COMPARISON OF SCALE AND FORM OF DECISIONS 
FOR DIFFERENT PLANNING LEVELS FOR NATIONAL 
FORESTS AND BLM LANDS 




National Forest and BLM Resource 
Area Level planning 



Broad and Mid Scale Planning Effort for 
National Forests and BLM lands 



* Decisions focus primarily on 
specific land allocations and 
management direction and 
standards and guidelines that 
regulate projects 

(i.e. timber sales, grazing 
allotments) at the Fine scale. 

* Ecological processes and 
functions at Mid and Broad 
landscape levels are seldom 
addressed. 

* Regulatory agency (FWS, 
NMFS, and EPA) consultations 
focus generally at the 
project /Fine scale. 



r= 



* Decisions focus primarily on 
management direction, goals, 
objectives and guidelines to 
address ecosystem issues, 
processes, functions, and people 
at the Broad and Mid scale 
levels. 

* Land allocations and 
management direction and 
standards at the Fine or project 
level are seldom addressed. 

* Regulating agency 
consultations (FWS, NMFS, 
EPA) focus primarily at Mid and 
Broad scale levels. 



Generalized Scales of Decisions: 



Generalized Forms of Decisions: 



14 



" " .-. .---...-,-.■-■;.-,■ '"■ ;.:±-^^^ J r-YK^^^^ 



■ . ■ ■ 

:■::■,:,:■ ,,::■ :,-,,... .,..,. ............ -....-, ■. ■ ■■ 






IV. Analysis and Evaluation Comparing Planning Approaches 

To help determine the risks and benefits of broad scale planning and implementation through 
simultaneous plan amendments and regulatory agency consultations, the responses of National 
Forest and BLM Resource Area level planning, and the Broad and Mid Scale Planning Effort to 
current ecosystem problems, legal requirements, and social and economic needs, were assessed and 
compared (Table 1). 

The requirements listed in column "A." in Table 1 are taken or inferred from Section III of 
this paper. The planning approaches (columns B. and C.) are as portrayed in Figure 2. 
Assessments were made on the basis of the estimated responses of the different approaches 
exclusively, to the requirements. 

In general, responses of the Broad and Mid Scale Planning Effort to requirements rated 
higher compared to the responses of National Forest and BLM Resource Area level planning efforts. 



For item 1 (options to solve ecosystem problems), National Forest and BLM individual unit 
planning may define desired ranges of future conditions judged necessary for individual units, but 
these will likely be insufficient at broad and mid scale levels. Experience also shows that 
cumulative impacts of large scale issues(wide ranging species viability, forest and rangeland health, 
etc.) cannot be effectively addressed on an individual unit basis. 

Public perception and agency opinions affirm that because broad scale context is poorly 
understood at the individual unit plan level, decisions on broad scale issues cannot be successfully 
resolved at that level. However, National Forest and BLM Resource Area level planning provide 
mid and fine scale information on local conditions, including local public opinion, necessary to 
ultimately refine and successfully implement broad scale management strategies. 

Broad scale plans will employ the best available science to provide for successful resolution 
of broad and mid scale ecosystem health problems. These plans will also be designed to meet recent 
legal sufficiency requirements for broad scale issues. To the extent that the lack of these provisions 
has limited the economic and social needs of people, people should be strongly benefitted by their 
presence, through more predictable and reliable availability of natural resources. 

. For item 2 (legal requirements), if broad scale ecosystem issues and needs are implemented 
through 74 separate National Forest and BLM Resource Area plan amendments and agency 
consultations as indicated under column B, activities leading to services and uses by people in rural 
public land dependent communities will likely continue to be challenged on a unit-by-unit basis or 
in coordinated litigation that addresses several units in one effort. Challenges will likely be based 
on the inability to disclose the cumulative effects across jurisdictional lines for broad scale issues. 

The additional time needed to organize and 

Table 1. A comparison of the responsiveness of National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Resource Area level 

planning, and Broad and Mid Scale Planning Addition, and planning amendment approaches to ecosystem problems, 

15 



legal requirements, and related economic and social needs. 

A. 

Ecosvsiem. Legal and Social and Economic Requirements 

1 ■ Improve options for resolving compelling broad/mid-scale 

ecosystem problems. 

a. Maintain long-term ecosystem health and integrity. 

(1) Establish desired ranges of future conditions Moderate 
of landscapes for vegetation and hydrology. 

(2) Refine interim direction for PACF1SH and 
INF1SH based primarily on broad and mid scale 
ecological processes and functions. 

(3) Establish primarily broad and mid scale 
desired ranges of future conditions for 
species population viability. 

b. Support the economic and/or social needs of 
people, cultures and communities. 

( 1 ) Contribute to the viability and resilience of 
human communities. 

(2) Increase availability and deliverabiliy of 
resources through improved ecosystem health 
and an improved litigation record relative to 
plan implementation, primarily at the broad 
and mid scale levels. 

2. Respond to legal requirements in a manner that increases probabilities 
of prevailing in litigation over broad and mid scale issues. 

a. Maintain long-term ecosystem health and integrity. 

( 1 ) Improve response to issues related to long- 
term sustainability and cumulative effect of 
connected actions occurring at broad and 
mid scales. 

(2) Improve consultation with regulatory agencies 
through focus on broad and mid scale 
considerations. 

b. Support the economic and/or social needs of people 
cultures and communities. 

( 1 ) Reduce risk of legal injunctions and 
litigation losses through improved plan 
response to broad and mid scale issues. 

(2) Maximize options for providing continuity of 
resource delivery systems through increased legal 
sufficiency on issues of broad and mid scale. 

3. To accomplish #1 and #2 above using the most cost effective planning 
process and opportunities for informed public participation. 

a. Cost-effective plan amendments 

b. Effective and equitable public involvement 

c. Efficient and effective regulatory agency consultations 



B. 



Planning Responses 



National Forest and BLM 
Resource Area Level 
Planning and Unit-by-Unit 
Plan Amendment 
and Consultation 



Broad and Mid Scale 
Planning Addition 
and Simultaneous Plan 
Amendment and Consultation 



High 



Moderate 



Low 



Low 
Low 



High 
High 



Moderate- High 
Moderate-High 



Low 



Low 



Low 



Low 



Moderate-High 



High 



Moderate-High 



Moderate-High 



Low-Moderate 
Low-Moderate 
Low-Moderate 



Moderate-High 
Moderate-High 
High 



16 









- ',-:,'■■ •' ' :'" ::: ': : '-./y: : -f-Z.-.I. 



carry out 74 individual plan amendments, including those to Forest Service Regional Guides, will 
likely increase the time in which current plans are vulnerable to litigation and injunction, thereby 
increasing the vulnerability of ongoing and proposed projects and activities which contribute to 
community viability. 

Successful challenges could lead to effects on programs similar to those in the Pacific 
Northwest related to the northern spotted owl, and those related to the Pacific Rivers Council's 
challenge to six National Forest plans in Idaho and two in eastern Oregon. 

Seventy four separate plan amendment efforts have a greater likelihood of being inconsistent 
and lacking in comprehensive use of information, than a simultaneous, multiple amendment process 
that applies appropriate direction at appropriate scales across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Regulatory agency consultations will reflect broad and mid-scale dimensions that are now 
lacking. Existing fine scale, site specific standards will be refined and complemented with direction 
reflecting desired conditions for broad scale ecological functions and processes. The result will be 
more realistic, flexible direction. 

For item 3, 74 individual National Forest and BLM Resource Area plan amendments and 
regulatory agency consultations reflecting needed direction to respond to the requirements as 
indicated in column B would be very costly. To insure proper public input, the process could also 
be very lengthy, offering significant opportunities for legal challenge. By comparison, following the 
Broad and Mid Scale Planning Effort (Item C), costs would not exceed those remaining for the 
Upper Columbia River Basin and Eastside EISs (less than $10 million) and amendments and 
consultations at the broad scale would be complete when the RODs were signed. 

If the assumptions of the analysis are accepted, it seems clear that current National Forest 
and BLM Resource Area level planning is insufficient to meet ecosystem, legal, and socioeconomic 
requirements at the broad, landscape level. However, taken alone, broad and mid scale planning is 
also insufficient to meet fine scale or project level requirements. This is shown in Figure 3. The 
apparent necessary and sufficient condition is therefore, for the two approaches to be applied in a 
complementary way, and in a way that offers the greatest social and economic efficiency: 
simultaneous amendments of National Forest plans and Regional Guides, and BLM Resource Area 
plans, including one-time regulatory agency consultations on plan amendments. 



17 



-"rSKK^ 



im^,s:: 1 r?fi^^mm^m':: 









el planning 



Forms of 
Decisions 

Goals, 

Objectives, 

Guidelines 



Goals, Objectives, 
Standards, Guidelines 



Goals, Objectives, 

Standards, 

Guidelines 




Generalized scales 
of Decisions 



Broad: 

River Basin or 

Regional 

direction 



Direction for individual 
or groups of national 
forests/BLM districts 
with similar ecological 
conditions 



Projects 



k) \X u 111 c> IX 11XL.X* 



planning, and. .[National rorest and JoLJVl 
level planning processes. Jbach is necessary 
: alone. The Broad and Mid Scale Planning 
Effort emphasizes broad landscape level direction stated 
primarily as goals, objectives and guidelines to 
complement current Forest and Resource Area planning, 



standards. A, B, and C together, repres 
and sufficient integrated planning cond 



he necessary 



•After reconciliation of A & B - Future amendment of plans may be initiated by project, or on a unit by unit basis 



18 



VlfMSiiiii 



EISMf?> 



j r, ,■!■<.' 



I Appendix 2-1 

Terrestrial and 
Aquatic Species 

{(Comparable to UCRB Appendix E and Appendix J) 




1 3 SI 






y 



- 



* 



'jJBjbB 






This appendix includes the 
following: 

• Tables 

• Threatened, endangered, and candidate 

species in the Eastside planning area. 

• Vascular plant species analyzed by the 

Science Integration Team 

• Vertebrate species analyzed by the Science 

Integration Team. 

• Sensitive Species 

• Maps 

• Borax Lake chub and Hutton Tui chub 

distribution 

• Foskett speckled dace and shortnose 

sucker distribution 

• Lost River sucker and Warner sucker 
distribution 

• Lahontan cutthroat trout distribution. 

• Snake River salmon high priority 

watersheds. 

• Critical habitat for Snake River spring, 

summer, and fall chinook salmon and 
Snake River Sockeye Salmon. 

• Grizzly bear recovery zones 



1M 



Table 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Species in Oregon 
and Washington. 



Approved Designated 

Recovery Plan Critical Habitat 



Threatened (12 spp) 

Bald eagle Yes No 

Northern spotted owl No Yes 

Marbled murrelet No No 

Warner sucker No Yes 

Hutton Spring tui chub No No 

Lahontan cutthroat trout Yes No 

Foskett speckled dace No No 

Snake River Chinook salmon (spring/ summer) No Yes 

Snake River Chinook salmon (fall) No Yes 

Grizzly bear Yes No 

Water howellia No No 

MacFarlane's four o'clock Yes Yes 

Endangered (9 spp) 

Peregrine falcon Yes No 

Shortnose sucker No No 

Lost River sucker No No 

Borax Lake chub Yes Yes 

Snake River sockeye salmon No No 

Woodland caribou Yes No 

Gray wolf Yes No 

Applegate's milk-vetch No No 

Malheur wire-lettuce No No 

Candidate (5 spp) 

Spotted frog No No 

Bull trout No No 

Howell's spectacular thelypody No No 

Basalt daisy No No 

Oregon checkermallow No No 

Proposed (1 spp) 

Steelhead No No 

This table is current as of March 15, 1997 



Table 2. Vascular Plant Species Used in the Evaluation of Alternatives for 
the Eastside Planning Area. 



Scientific Name 



Common Name 



Astragalus mulfordiae 

Astragalus solitarius 

Botrychium ascendens 

Botrychium crenulatum 

Botrychium paradoxum 

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus 

Calochortus longebarbatus var. peckii 

Calochortus nitidus 

Castilleja chlorotica 

Collomia mazama 

Cypripediumfasciculatum 

Hackelia cronquistii 

Howellia aquatilis 

Lomatium suksdorfii 

Mirabilis macfarlanei 

Mimulus pygmaeus 

Mimulus washingtonensisvar . washingtonensis 

Penstemon glaucinus 

Polemoniumpectinatum 

Silene spaldingii 

Stephanomeria malheurensis 

Trifolium thompsonii 



Mulford's milk-vetch 
Solitary milk-vetch 
Upswept moonwort 
Dainty moonwort 
Paradox moonwort 
Long-bearded mariposa lily 
Peck's mariposa lily 
Broadfruit mariposa lily 
Green-tinged indian paintbrush 
Mazama collomia 
Clustered ladyslipper 
Cronquist's stickseed 
Water howellia 
Suksdorf s biscuitroot 
MacFarlane's four-o'clock 
Pygmy monkeyflower 
Washington monkeyflower 
Blue-leaved penstemon 
Washington polemonium 
Spalding's catchfly 
Malheur wire-lettuce 
Thompson's clover 



Table 3. Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Used in the Evaluation of 
Alternatives for the Eastside Planning Area. 



Common Name 



Scientific Name 


Evaluation 


Bufo boreas 


HER 


Bufo woodhousii 


HER 


Ascaphus truei 


HER 


Ranapipiens 


HER 


Rana luteiventris 


HER 


Rana pretiosa 


HER 


Gauia immer 


WAT 


Aechmophorus clarkii 


WAT 


Podiceps grisegena 


WAT 


Aechmophorus occidentalis 


WAT 


Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 


WAT 


Botaurus lentiginosus 


WAT 


Nycticorax nycticorax 


WAT 


Ardea herodias 


WAT 


Casmerodius albus 


WAT 


Egretta thula 


WAT 


Ixobrychus exilis hesperis 


WAT 


Plegadis chihi 


WAT 


Anas americana 


WAT 


Bucephala islandica 


WAT 


Anas discors 


WAT 


Bucephala albeola 


WAT 


Aythya valisineria 


WAT 


Anas cyanoptera 


WAT 


Bucephala clangula 


WAT 


Mergus merganser 


WAT 


Anas strepera 


WAT 


Anas crecca 


WAT 


Histrionicus histrionicus 


WAT 


Lophodytes cucullatus 


WAT 


Aythya affinis 


WAT 


Anas platyrhynchos 


WAT 


Anas acuta 


WAT 


Anas clypeata 


WAT 


Aythya americana 


WAT 


Aythya collaris 


WAT 


Oxyurajamaicensis 


WAT 


Abe sponsa 


WAT 


Porzana Carolina 


WAT 


Rallus limicola 


WAT 


Grus canadensis tabida 


WAT 


Pluuialis squatarola 


WAT 


Charadrius semipalmatus 


WAT 


Charadrius alexandrinus hivosus 


WAT 


Recurvirostra americana 


WAT 


Himantopus mexicanus 


WAT 


Calidris bairdii 


WAT 


Gallinago gallinago 


WAT 


Calidras alpina 


WAT 



AMPHIBIANS 

Western toad 
Woodhouse's toad 
Tailed frog 

Northern leopard frog 
Columbian spotted frog 
Oregon spotted frog 

BIRDS 

Common loon 

Clark's grebe 

Red-necked grebe 

Western grebe 

American white pelican 

American bittern 

Black-crowned night heron 

Great blue heron 

Great egret 

Snowy egret 

Western least bittern 

White-faced ibis 

American wigeon 

Barrow's goldeneye 

Blue-winged teal 

Bufflehead 

Canvasback 

Cinnamon teal 

Common goldeneye 

Common merganser 

Gadwall 

Green-winged teal 

Harlequin duck 

Hooded merganser 

Lesser scaup 

Mallard 

Northern pintail 

Northern shoveler 

Redhead 

Ring-necked duck 

Ruddy duck 

Wood duck 

Sora 

Virginia rail 

Greater sandhill crane 

Black-bellied plover 

Semipalmated plover 

Western snowy plover 

American avocet 

Black-necked stilt 

Baird's sandpiper 

Common snipe 

Dunlin 



Common Name 



Scientific Name 


Evaluation 


Tringa melanoleuca 


WAT 


Calidris minutilla 


WAT 


Tringa jlavipes 


WAT 


Numenius americanus 


WAT 


Limnodromus scolopaceus 


WAT 


Limosafedoa 


WAT 


Calidris melanotos 


WAT 


Phalaropus lobatus 


WAT 


Calidris alba 


WAT 


Calidris pusilla 


WAT 


Actitis macularia 


WAT 


Bartramia longicauda 


WAT 


Calidris mauri 


WAT 


Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 


WAT 


Phalaropus tricolor 


WAT 


Chlidonias niger 


WAT 


Lams califomicus 


WAT 


Stemaforsteri 


WAT 


Larus delawarensis 


WAT 


Haliaeetus leucocephalus 


RGB 


Accipiter cooperii 


RGB 


Buteo regalis 


RGB 


Accipiter gentilis 


RGB 


Buteo swainsoni 


RGB 


Falco columbarius 


RGB 


Dendragapus obscurus 


RGB 


Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus 


RGB 


Oreortyx pictus 


RGB 


Centrocercus urophasianus 


RGB 


Columbajasciata 


RGB 


Strix varia 


RGB 


Aegoliusfunereus 


RGB 


Athene cunicularia 


RGB 


Otusjlammeolus 


RGB 


Strix nebulosa 


RGB 


Asio otus 


RGB 


Glaucidium gnoma 


RGB 


Aegolius acadicus 


RGB 


Otus kennicottii 


RGB 


Parus rufescens 


CAV 


Chaetura vauxi 


CAV 


Picoides arcticus 


CAV 


Picoides pubescens 


CAV 


Picoides villosus 


CAV 


Melanerpes lewis 


CAV 


Dryocopus pileatus 


CAV 


Sphyrapicus nuchalis 


CAV 


Picoides tridactylus 


CAV 


Picoides albolarvatus 


CAV 


Sphyrapicus thyroideus 


CAV 


Sitta pygmaea 


CAV 


Sitta carolinensis 


CAV 


Archilochus alexandri 


PAS 


Selasphorus rufus 


PAS 


Myiarchus cinerascens 


PAS 


Empidonax hammondii 


PAS 


Contopus borealis 


PAS 



Greater yellowlegs 

Least sandpiper 

Lesser yellowlegs 

Long-billed curlew 

Long-billed dowitcher 

Marbled godwit 

Pectoral sandpiper 

Red-necked phalarope 

Sanderling 

Semipalmated sandpiper 

Spotted sandpiper 

Upland sandpiper 

Western sandpiper 

Willet 

Wilson's phalarope 

Black tern 

California gull 

Forster's tern 

Ring-billed gull 

Bald eagle 

Cooper's hawk 

Ferruginous hawk 

Northern goshawk 

Swainson's hawk 

Merlin 

Blue grouse 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

Mountain quail 

Sage grouse 

Band-tailed pigeon 

Barred owl 

Boreal owl 

Burrowing owl 

Flammulated owl 

Great gray owl 

Long-eared owl 

Northern pygmy-owl 

Northern saw-whet owl 

Western screech owl 

Chestnut-backed chickadee 

Vaux's swift 

Black-backed woodpecker 

Downy woodpecker 

Hairy woodpecker 

Lewis' woodpecker 

Pileated woodpecker 

Red-naped sapsucker 

Three-toed woodpecker 

White-headed woodpecker 

Williamson's sapsucker 

Pygmy nuthatch 

White-breasted nuthatch 

Black-chinned hummingbird 

Rufous hummingbird 

Ash-throated flycatcher 

Hammond's flycatcher 

Olive- sided flycatcher 



: : :x;; : .. : :: : : ::::::::■■■■■■' - : -- : - 



Table 3. Vertebrate Species in the Eastside Planning Area Used in the 
Evaluation of Alternatives (continued). 



Common Name 


Scientific Name 


Evaluation 1 


BIRDS (continued) 






Willow flycatcher 


Empidonax traillii 


PAS 


Horned lark 


Eremophila alpestris 


PAS 


Bushtit 


Psaltriparus minimus 


PAS 


Winter wren 


Troglodytes troglodytes 


PAS 


Veeiy 


Catharusfuscescens 


PAS 


Western bluebird 


Sialia mexicana 


PAS 


Sage thrasher 


Oreoscopt.es montanus 


PAS 


Loggerhead shrike 


Lanius ludovicianus 


PAS 


Red-eyed vireo 


Vireo olivaceus 


PAS 


Bobolink 


Dolichonyx oryzivorus 


PAS 


Brewer's blackbird 


Euphagus cyanocephalus 


PAS 


Brewer's sparrow 


Sptzella breweri 


PAS 


Chipping sparrow 


Spizella passerina 


PAS 


Grasshopper sparrow 


Ammodramus savannarum 


PAS 


Green-tailed towhee 


Pipilo chlorurus 


PAS 


Lark sparrow 


Chondestes grarnmacus 


PAS 


Lazuli bunting 


Passerina amoena 


PAS 


Red-winged blackbird 


Agelaius phoeniceus 


PAS 


Rufous-sided towhee 


Pipilo erythrophthalmus 


PAS 


Sage sparrow 


Amphispiza belli 


PAS 


Vesper sparrow 


Pooecetes gramineus 


PAS 


Western meadowlark 


Sturnella neglecta 


PAS 


Western tanager 


Piranga ludouiciana 


PAS 


White-winged crossbill 


Loxia leucoptera 


PAS 


Wilson's warbler 


Wilsonia pusilla 


PAS 


White-winged crossbill 


Loxia leucoptera 


PAS 


Yellow warbler 


Dendroica petechia 


PAS 


Yellow-billed cuckoo 


Coccyzus americanus 


PAS 


Yellow-breasted chat 


Icteria virens 


PAS 


Black rosy finch 


Leucosticte atrata 


PAS 


MAMMALS 






Fringed myotis 


Myotis thysanodes 


BSM 


Hoary bat 


Lasiurus cinereus 


BSM 


Long-eared myotis 


Myotis euotis 


BSM 


Long-legged myotis 


Myotis volans 


BSM 


Pale western big-eared bat 


Corynorhinus (Plecotus) townsendii pallescens BSM 


Silver-haired bat 


Lasionycteris noctivagans 


BSM 


Spotted bat 


Euderma maculatum 


BSM 


Western small-footed myotis 


Myotis ciliolabrum 


BSM 


Pygmy rabbit 


Brachylagus idahoensis 


BSM 


White-tailed jackrabbit 


Lepus townsendii 


BSM 


Northern flying squirrel 


Glaucomys sabrinus 


BSM 


Gray wolf 


Canis lupus 


C&U 


Grizzly bear 


Ursus arctos 


c&u 


American marten 


Martes americana 


C&U 


Fisher 


Martes pennanti 


c&u 


Wolverine 


Gulo gulo 


c&u 


Lynx 


Lynx lynx 


c&u 






Common Name 



Scientific Name 



Evaluation 1 



Woodland caribou 

Pronghorn 

California bighorn sheep 

REPTILES 

Painted turtle 
Western pond turtle 
Desert horned lizard 
Longnose leopard lizard 
Sagebrush lizard 
Short-horned lizard 
Rubber boa 
Common garter snake 
Night snake 
Sharptail snake 
Striped whipsnake 



Rangifer tarandus caribou 


C&U 


Antilocapra americana 


C&U 


Ouis canadensis calijomiana 


C&U 


Chrysemys picta 


HER 


Clemmys marmorata 


HER 


Phrynosomaplatyrhinos 


HER 


Gambelia wislizenii 


HER 


Sceloporus graciosus graciosus 


HER 


Phrynosoma douglassii 


HER 


Charina bottae 


HER 


Thamnophis sirtalis 


HER 


Hypsiglena torqaata 


HER 


Contia tenuis 


HER 


Masticophis punctatus 


HER 



1 Evaluation: 

BSM - bat and small mammal panel; 

CAV - cavity nesting woodpeckers, swifts, and nuthatches; 

C&U - mammalian carnivore and ungulate panel; 

HER - amphibian and reptile panel; 

PAS - passerine and other birds; 

RGB - raptor and game bird panel; 

WAT -waterbird and shorebird panel; 



IS/Appbndvc 2- J /Pack 151 



Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* 



Species 



ELM 
OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Re gion 

Rl R4 R6 



Mammals 

spotted bat. Euderma maculatum 

Townsend's (Pacific, western) big-eared bat, 
Corynorhinus (Plecotus) townsendii townsendii 

pale Townsend's big-eared bat, 

Corynorhinus (Plecotus) townsendii pailescens 

big brown bat, Eptesicusjuscus 

western small-footed myotis, Myotis ciliolabrum 

long-eared myotis, Myotis evotis 

fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes 

long-legged myotis, Myotis uolans 

Yuma myotis, Myotis yumaensis 

dark kangaroo mouse, 
Microdipodops megacephalus 

Kincaid's meadow vole, 
Microtus pennsyluanicus kincaidi 

water vole, Microtus richardsoni 

Preble's shrew, Sorex preblei 

dwarf shrew, Sorex nanus 

vagrant shrew, Sorex uagrans 

Destruction Island shrew, 
Sorex trowbridgii destructioni 

Belding ground squirrel, Spermophilus beldingi 

Richardson ground squirrel, 
Spermophilus richardsoni 

rock squirrel, Spermophilus variegatus 

yellow pine chipmunk, Eutamius amoenus 

northern bog lemming, Synaptomys borealis 

pygmy rabbit, Brachylagus idahoensis 

lynx, Lynx lynx 

wolverine, Gulogulo 

California wolverine, Gulogulo luteus 

fisher, Martes pennanti 

Pacific fisher, Martes pennanti pacifica 

river otter, Ultra canadensis 

kit fox, Vulpes velox macrotis 

California bighorn sheep, 
Ovis canadensis californiana 





X 








X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 




X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 




X 


X 


X 



X 
X 
X 

X 



X 


X 


X 


X 


X 








X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 




X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 




X 
















X 


X 




X 


X 






X 


X 





.'." ■■'■■. ■: 



Species 



ELM 
OR/WA WY MT ID 



NV UT 



Birds 

common loon, Gauia immer 

red-necked grebe, Podiceps grisegena 

American white pelican, 
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

trumpeter swan, Cygnus buccinator 

Caspian tern, Sterna caspia 

black tern, Chlidonias niger 

Forster's tern, Sternajorsteri 

snowy egret, Egretta thula 

white-faced ibis, Plegadis chihi 

black-crowned night heron, 
Nycticorax nycticorax 

harlequin duck, Histrionicus histrionicus 

marbled murrelet, Brachyramphus marmoratus 

American bittern, Botarus lentiginosus 

least bittern, Ixobrychus exilis 

western least bittern. Ixobrychus exilis hesperis 

yellow rail, Coturnicops noveboracensis 

greater sandhill crane, Grus canadensis tabida 

long-billed curlew, Numenius americanus 

upland sandpiper, Bartramia longicauda 

snowy plover, Charadrius alexandrinus 

mountain plover, Charadrius montanus 

flammulated owl, Otus Jlammeolus 

great gray owl, Strix nebulosa 

boreal owl, Aegolius Junereus 

burrowing owl, Speotyto (=Athene) cunicularia 

western burrowing owl, 

Speotyto (=Athene) cunicularia hypugea 

northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis 

prairie falcon, Falco mexicanus 

merlin, Falco columbarius 

ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalia 

Swainson's hawk, Buteo swainsoni 

osprey, Pandion haliaetus 

northern harrier, Circus cyaneus 

white-headed woodpecker, Picoides albolarvatus 

three-toed woodpecker, Picoides tridactylus 

black-backed woodpecker, Picoides arcticus 

hairy woodpecker, Picoides uillosus 



x 
x 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 



X 
X 
X 



X 

X 



X 






X 


X 




X 


X 

X 


X 


X 
X 


X 




X 


X 


X 


X 
X 


X 


X 
X 

X 


X 






X 






X 




X 


X 






X 




X 

X 


X 







Forest Service 
Re gion 

Rl R4 R6 



x 

X 

X 



..J.';.;.,-;- 






Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* (continued) 



Species 



BLM 
OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Region 

Rl R4 R6 



Lewis' woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis 

pileated woodpecker, Dryocopus pileatus 

red-naped woodpecker, Sphyrapicus nuchalis 

Williamson's sapsucker, Sphyrapicus throideus 

mountain quail, Oerortyx pictus 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, 
Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus 

western sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus 

tricolored blackbird, Agelaius tricolor 

yellow-headed blackbird, 
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

black rosy finch, Leucosticte arctoa atrata 

yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus 

black-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

pygmy nuthatch, Sitta pygmaea 

loggerhead shrike, Lanus ludovicianus 

Vaux's swift, Chaetura vauxi 

black swift, Cypseloides niger 

ash-throated flycatcher, Myiarchus cinerascens 

olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus boralis 

dusky flycatcher, Empidonax oberholseri 

Cordilleran flycatcher, Empidonax occidentalis 

Hammond's flycatcher, Empidonax hammondii 

gray flycatcher, Empidonax wrightii 

willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii 

little willow flycatcher, 
Empidonax traillii brewsteri 

southwestern willow flycatcher, 
Empidonax traillii extimus 

black-throated gray warbler, 
Dendroica nigrescens 

Townsend's warbler, Dendroica townsendii 

yellow warbler, Dendroica petechia 

MacGillivray's warbler, Oporonis tolmiei 

Virginia's warbler, Vermivora uirginiae 

Wilson's warbler, Wilsonia pusilla 

western bluebird, Sialia mexicana 

purple martin, Progne subis 

Bell's vireo, Vireo bellii 



x 
x 



X 
X 
X 



X 
X 
X 

X 

X 



X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 



X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 



X 
X 
X 



X 
X 









:.:::::::::: ::::::; : : : :■: :-:V : / : : ><>: : : : !: : V : : : : : : : ■: : : : : : lig: i : : : : i 



Species 



ELM 
OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Re gion 

Rl R4 R6 



solitary vireo, Vireo solitarius 

bobolink, Dolichonyx oryzivoms 

Scott's oriole, Icterus pusilla 

veery, Catharus fuscescens 

Swainson's thrush. Catharus ustulatus 

Calliope hummingbird, Stellula caliope 

rufous hummingbird, Selaphorus rufus 

grasshopper sparrow, 
Ammodramus savannarum 

Brewer's sparrow, Spizella breweri 

sage sparrow, Amphispiza belli 

scrub jay, Aphelocoma coerulescens 

plain titmouse, Parus inornatus 

bushtit, Psalriparus minimus 

green-tailed towhee, Pipilo chlorurus 



x 
x 

X 



X 
X 
X 
X 

x 
x 
x 

X 

x 

X 



Reptiles and Amphibians 

northern red-legged frog, Rana auroa auroa x 

mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa 

Cascades frog, Rana cascadae x 

northern leopard frog, Rana pipiens x 

tailed frog, Ascaphus truei x 

wood frog, Rana sylvaica 

Pacific tree frog, Hyla regilla 

western toad. Bufo boreas 

Coeur d'Alene salamander, 
Plethodon vandykei idahoensis 

Cope's giant salamander, Dicamptodon copei 

Larch Mountain salamander, Plethodon larseii x 

painted turtle, Chrysemys picta x 

western pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata x 

northwestern pond turtle, 
Clemmys marmorata marmorata 

northern sagebrush lizard, 

Sceloporus graciosus graciosus x 

many-lined skink, Emeces mulliuirgatus gaigei 

Mojave black-collared lizard, Crotahytus bicinclores 

plateau whiptail, Cnemidophorus uelox 

Utah mountain kingsnake, 
Lampropeltis pyrometena infralabialis 

Utah milk snake, Lampropeltis triangulum taylori 

western ground snake, Sonora seminannulata 



x 
x 



x 

X 
X 



x 
x 



Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* (continued) 



Species 



BLM 

OR/WA WY MT ID 



NV UT 



Forest Service 
Region 

Rl R4 R6 



ringneck snake, Diadophis punctatus 
longnose snake, Rhinocheilus lecontei 



x 
x 



Fish 

Malheur mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdiispp. 

Shoshone sculpin, Cottus greenei 

Wood River sculpin, Cottus leiopomus 

torrent sculpin, Cottus rhotheus 

shorthead sculpin, Cottus coniusus 

pit sculpin, Cottus pitensis 

slender sculpin, Cottus tenuis 

margined sculpin, Cottus marginatus 

westslope cutthroat trout, 
Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi 

Bonneville/Utah cutthroat trout, 
Oncorhynchus clarki Utah 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout, 
Oncorhynchus clarki bouuieri 

fine spotted cutthroat trout, 
Oncorhynchus clarki ssp. 

interior reband trout, 
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 

Catlow Valley redband trout, 
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 

Goose Lake redband trout, 
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 

Warner Valley redband trout, 
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 

spring/summer chinook salmon, 
Oncorhynchus tshawyscha 

coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch ssp. 

Alvord chub, Gila alvordensis 

Oregon tui chub, Gila bicolor oregonensis 

Sheldon tui chub, Gila bicolor eury soma 

Catlow tui chub, Gila bicolor ssp. 

summer basin tui chub, Gila bicolor ssp. 

leatherside chub, Gila copei 

roundtail chub, Gila robusta robusta 

white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus 

Goose Lake sucker, 

Catostomus occidentalis lacusanerinus 



x 
x 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 



XXX 



XXX 

x x 

X 



X 
X 



X 
X 



X 

X 






Species 



OR/WA WY MT 



iJsBSS 


















Forest Service 


BLM 








Region 


MT 


ED) 


NV 


UT 


Rl R4 R6 



Klamath large-scale sucker, Catostomus synderi 
Jenny Creek sucker, Catostomus rimiculus ssp. 
river lamprey, Lampetra ayresi 
Miller Lake lamprey, Lampetra minima 
Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata 
Goose Lake lamprey, Lampetra tridentata ssp. 
pit roach, Lauinia symmetricus mitrulus 
Olympic mudminnow, Novumbra hubbsi 
ling (burbot), Lota lota 



x 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 



Vascular Plants/ Bryophytes/Lichens/Fungi 

Henderson's ricegrass, 

Achnatherum hendersonii [=Oryzopsis hendersonii\ x 

Wallowa ricegrass, Achnatherum wallowensis x 

Adiantum pedatum var. novum 

Adoxa moschaielina 

Agoseris elata 

pink agoseris, Agoseris lackschewitzii 

Agrostis borealis 

Agrostis oregonensis 

Aaese's onion, Allium aaseae 

Allium acuminatum 

two-headed onion, Allium anceps 

Allium brandegei 

Allium campanulatum x 

Allium constrictum x 

Allium dictuon x 

Allium fibrilium 

Allium geyeri var. geyeri 

swamp onion, Allium madidum 

Tolmie's onion, Allium tolmiei var. persimile 

tall swamp onion, Allium validum 

candystick, Allotropa virgata 

Malheur Valley fiddleneck, Amsinckia carinata x 

Anemone nuttalliana 

Antennaria arcuata 

Antennaria aromatica 

Antennaria corymbosa 

Antennaria densijolia 

Antennaria parvifolia 

Aquilegia brevistyla 



x 

X 
X 



X 
X 



X 

X 



X 
X 



X 
X 



X 



:t s;::,:-.:.:.::: ,:,:.;:, , 



: ' ' ' : 



Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* (continued) 



Species 



BLM 

OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Region 

Rl R4 R6 



Arabis Jalcatoria 

Arabis fecunda 

Crater Lake rockcress, 

Arabis suffrutescens var. horizontalis x 

Thompson's sandwort, 

Arenariafranklinii van thompsonii x 

armed prickly poppy, Argemone munita 

Arnica alpina var. tomentosa 

Arnica viscosa 

Artemisia campelris spp. 

borealis & var. wormskioldii x 

Artemisia ludoviciana estesii x 

green-flowered wild ginger, Asarum wagneri x 

coral lichen, Aspiciliafruticulosa 

Asplenium trichomanes-ramisum 

Asplenium triphomanes 

Asplenium viride 

Aster gormanii 

Asterjessicae x 

Aster sibiricus var. meritus 

Challis milk-vetch, Astragalus amblytropis 

Lost River milk-vetch, Astragalus amnis-amissi 

Goose Creek milk-vetch, Astragalus anserinus 

Lemhi milk-vetch, Astragalus aquilonius 

Astragalus arrectus 

Astragalus arthuri 

mourning milk-vetch, 
Astragalus atratus var.inseptus 

Astragalus atratus var. owyheensis 

Laurence's milk-vetch, 

Astragalus collinus var. laurentii x 

Columbia milk-vetch, Astragalus columbianus x 

Astragalus cusickii 

Astragalus diaphanus var. diurnus x 

mesic milk-vetch, Astragalus diversifolius 

Big Piney milk-vetch, Astragalus drabellijormis 

plains milk-vetch. Astragalus gilviflorus 

Astragalus howellii x 

starveling milk-vetch, Astragalus jejunusjejunus 



x x 



x 
x 



x 

X 



X 
X 

X 



x 

X 



X 
X 



Species 



BLM 
OR/WA WY MT ID 



NV UT 



Forest Service 
Region 

Rl R4 R6 



Douglas' milk-vetch, 

Astragalus kentrophyta uar.douglasii x 

park milk-vetch. Astragalus leptaleus 

Astragalus molybdenus 

Mulford's milk-vetch, Astragalus mulfordiae x 

Newberry's milk-vetch, 
Astragalus newberryi castoreus 

Picabo milk-vetch, Astragalus onciformis 

Payson's milk-vetch, Astragalus paysonii 

Astragalus peckii x 

Ames' milk-vetch, 

Astragalus pulsiferae var.suksdorfi x 

Snake River milk-vetch, 
Astragalus purshii ophiogenes 

Trout Creek milk-vetch. Astragalus salmonis 

whited milk-vetch, Astragalus sinuatus x 

sterile milk-vetch, Astragalus sterilis x 

Astragalus tegetarioides x 

four-wing milk-vetch, Astragalus tetrapterus 

Tygh Valley milk-vetch. Astragalus tyghensis x 

White Cloud milk-vetch, 
Astragalus vexilliflexus var. nubilus 

Osgood Mtns./ Mud flat milk-vetch, 
Astragalus yoder-williamsii 

Athysanus puelius 

Betula pumlia 

Betula papyrifera var. commutata 

Blechnum aploant 

deer fern, Blechnum spicant 

king's desertgrass, Blepharidachne kingii 

Botrychium ascendens x 

Botrychium crenulatum x 

Botrychium hesperium 

Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum 

Botrychium lunaria 

Botrychium minganense 

Botrychium montanum 

paradox moonwart, Botrychium. paradoxum x 

stalked moonwort, Botrychium pedunculosum x 

Boirychium pinnatum 

pumice grape-fern, Botrychium pumicola x 

Botrychium simplex 



x 
x 

x 



x 
x 



X 
X 
X 

X 



x 

X 



X 
X 

x 

X 

X 
X 
X 



x 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 






:::.;. ■:■!:: ::■: ::■:::■: :■:■:■;■>;■:;■;■:-■-:■:■:-.: 



Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* (continued) 



Species 



OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Re gion 

Rl R4 R6 



blue gramma, Bouteloua gracilis 

Bryum calobryoid.es 

Bupleurum americanum 

leafless bug-on-a-stick, Buxbaumia aphylla 

Piper's bug-on-a-stick, Buxbaumia piperi 

Cascade reedgrass, Calagrostis tweedyi 

Calamagrostis breweri 

Cascade reedgras, Calamagrostis tweedyi 

Calliergon trifarum 

Greene's mariposa lili, Calochortus greenei 

long-bearded mariposa lily, 

Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus 

Peck's mariposa lily, 

Calochortus longebarbatus var. peckii 

Calochortus macrocarpus var. maculosus 

broad-fruit mariposa lily, Calochortus nitidus 

Cusick camas, Camassia cusickii 

obscure evening primrose, Camissonia andina 

Palmer's evening primrose, Camissonia palmeri 

winged seed evening primrose, 
Camissonia pterosperma 

dwarf evening primrose, Camissonia pygmaea 

Campanula scabrella 

Constance's bittercress, Cardamine constancei 

Carex atrata var. erecta 

Carex buxbaumii 

Carex californica 

Carex chordorrhiza 

Carex comosa 

Carex concinna 

Carexjlava 

Carex hendersonii 

Carex hystricina 

Idaho sedge, Carex idahoa 

Carex incurviformis 

Carex interrupta 

Carex tivida 

Carex macrochaeta 



x 
x 



x 

X 



X 

X 



x 

X 

X 



X 
X 



X 

X 
X 
X 



X 
X 
X 



X 
X 



X 

X 
X 



X 
X 

X 






. : ...: . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■.■■ : 
:x:::::: - ■ .' ■■ .: : '. ' ': .'. : ■ '■.':. .'■":.;: 



Species 



BLM 

OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Region 

Rl R4 R6 



Carex nova 

Carex nouegica 

Carex parvana ssp. idahoa 

Carex paupercula 

Carex proposita 

Carex saxatillis var. major 

Carex scirpoidea var. scirpoidea 

Carex scopulorumvar. prionophylla 

Carex slraminiformis 

Carex stylosa 

Carex synchnocephala 

Castilleja chlorotica x 

Castilleja covilieana 

Castilleja crypthantha x 

Castilleja fraterna x 

Castilleja pilosa var.steenensis x 

Castilleja rubida x 

Castilleja lorglapica 

Ceanothus prostratus 

Cetraria subalpina 

Chaenactis cusickii x 

Chaenactis stevioides 

Chaenactis thompsonii 

Cheilanthes feei 

Liverwort, .Chiloscyphus gemmiparus x 

Chrysosplenium tetrandrum 

Chrysothamnus nauseosus var. nanus 

Chrysothamnus parryi montanus 

acuta bulbifera 

Cimicifuga elata x 

Cladonia anderegii 

Cladonia luteoalba 

Cladonia transcendens 

Cladonia uncialis 

Cleomella plocasperma 

Clouta bulbiera 

Clarkia rhomboidea 

short-spored jelly lichen, Collema curtisporum 

scurfy jelly lichen, Collema jurjuraceum 

flexible alpine collomia, Collomia debilis campofum 

Mt. Mazama collomia, Collomia mazama x 



x 

X 



X 
X 
X 
X 



X 

x 

X 

X 
X 

x 

X 
X 



X 

X 



X 
X 



x 

X 

X 

X 

x 
x 

X 

X 

X 
X 

x 
x 



X 

X 



Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* (continued) 



Species 



BLM 
OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Re gion 

Rl R4 R6 



Barren Valley collomia, Collomia renacta 

Pacific dogwood, Cornus nuttalii 

Corydalis aquae-gelidae 

Corydalis caseana hastata 

Coryphantha vivipara 

CrepLs bakeri idahoensis 

Cryptantha caespitosa 

Cryptogramma stelleri 

sepal-tooth dodder, Cuscuta denticulata 

greeley's wavewing, 

Cymopterus acaulis var. greeleyorum 

Davis' wavewing, Cymopterus davisii 

Douglass' biscuitroot, Cymopterus douglasii 

Cymopterus ibapensis 

Cymopterus nivalis 

Cypripedium calceolus var. parvijlorum 

Cypripediumfasciculatum 

Cypripedium parvijlorum 

Cypripedium passerinum 

Dasynotus daubenmirei 

white rock larkspur, Delphinium leucophaeum 

Wenatchee larkspur, Delphinium viridescens 

Dermatocarpon lorenzianum 

Dimeresia howellii 

frigid shootingstar, Dodecatheon austrofrigidum 

Dodecatheon pulchellum var. watsonii 

Idaho douglasia, Douglasia idahoensis 

Downingia bacigalupii 

Draba aurea 

Draba cana (=lanceolala) 

Rockcress draba, Draba densifolia apiculata 

Yellowstone draba, Draba incerta 

Stanley's whitlow-grass, Draba trichocarpa 

Drosera intermedia 

Drosera linearis 

Dryas drummondii 

Dryopteris cristata 

Dryopteris fdix-mas 



x 

X 



X 
X 
X 
X 



X 
X 



X 

x 



X 
X 



X 
X 



X 

X 



X 
X 



X 
X 



X 
X 



X 
X 
X 



Species 



BLM 
OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Region 

Rl R4 R6 



Eatonella nivea 

Elaeagnus commutata 

Eleocharis atropurpurea 

Elymus innovatus 

Epilobium palustre 

Epipactis algenion 

Epipactis gigantea 

Erigeron acris var. elatus 

Erigeron asperugineus 

Erigeron basalticus 

Erigeron engelmannii var. davisii 

Erigeron evermannii 

Erigeron howellii 

Erigeron humilis 

Erigeron latus 

Erigeron linearia 

Erigeron oreganus 

desert buckwheat, 

Eriogonum brevicaule desertorum 

Welsh buckwheat, 

Eriogonum capistratum welshii 

golden buckwheat, Eriogonum chrysops 

Crosby's buckwheat, Eriogonum crosbyae 

Cusick's buckwheat, Eriogonum cusickii 

desert buckwheat, Eriogonum desertorum 

Lewis buckwheat, Eriogonum lewisii 

guardian buckwheat, Eriogonum meledonum 

Eriogonum ochrocephalum calcareum 

Eriogonum prociduum 

Eriogonum salicornioides 

Eriogonum shockleyi packardiae 

Eriogonum shockleyi shockleyi 

Eriophorum viridicarinalum 

Eritrichium nanum var. elongatum 

Eryngium peliolatum 

Eupatorium occidentale 

Filipendula occidentalis 

Gaultheria hispidula 

Centiana newberryi 

Centianopala simplex 

Geum rivale 



x 
x 

x 



X 
X 



X 
X 



X 
X 

X 



X 

X 



X 

X 



X 
X 



X 

A 



X 
X 



EAmsiVK Dkmt E/S/Ai'i'fc.vni.v 2-1 /Page 163 



Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* (continued) 



Species 



BLM 

OR/WA WY MT ID 



NV UT 



Forest Service 
Re gion 

Rl R4 R6 



Geum rossii var. depressum 

Geum ross it var. turbinatum 

Githopsis speculariodes 

Glyptopleura marginata 

Goodyera repens 

Grindelia howelli 

Hackelia cronquistil 

Hackelia diffusa var. diffusa 

Hackelia hispida var. disjuncta 

Hackelia ophiobia 

Hackelia venusta 

Halimolobos perplexa var. lemhiensis 

puzzling halimolobos, 
Halimolobos perplexa var. perplexa 

Haplopappus aberrane 

sticky goldenweed, 
Haplopappus hirlus sonchifolius 

bugleg goldenweed, Haplopappus insecticruris 

Palouse goldenweed, Haplopappus liatriformis 

Haplopappus macronema var. macronema 

radiate goldenweed/Snake River goldenweed, 
Haplopappus radiatus (Pyrrocoma radiatusj 

Haplopappus whitney ssp. discoideus 

Helodium blandow 

Hieraclium bolanderi 

Hymenoxys richardsonii 

Hypericum mqjus 

Hypogymnia apinnata 

Idahoa scapigera 

Iliamna longisepala 

Ipomopsis polycladon 

Ivesiarhyparavar. rhypara 

Ivesia shockleyi 

Juncus hallii 

Juncus kelloggii 

Kobresia myosuroides 

Lathyrus grimesii 

Lathyrus holochlorus 



x 
x 



X 
X 
X 



X 

X 

X 



X 

X 



X 
X 



X 
X 

X 



X 
X 



Eastswjc Draft EfS/Arnwim 2-1/Pagk 164 



Species 



... . ... 


BLM 








Forest Service 
Region 


OR/WA 


WY MT 


ID 


NV 


UT 


Rl R4 R6 



Lepedium dauisii 

slick-spot peppergrass, 
Lepedium papilliferum 

Bruneau River prickly phlox, 
Leptodactylon glabrum 

Hazel's prickly phlox, 

Leptodactylon pungens ssp. hazeliae 

Lesquerella carinata van languida 

Lesquerella humilla 

large-fruited bladderpod, 
Lesquerella macrocarpa 

Payson bladderpod, Lesquerella paysonii 

Lewisia columbiana ssp. Columbiana 

Limnanthes Jloccosa ssp. bellingeriana 

Limosella acaulis 

Lislera borealis 

Lobaria hallii 

Lobaria linita 

Lobaria scrobiculala 

Lobelia dortmanna 

Lobelia kalmii 

Loiseleuria procumbens 

Lomalium cusickii 

Lomatium erythrocarpum 

Lomatium geveri 

Lomatium greenmanii 

Lomatium "pastoralis" 

Lomatium rollinsii 

Lomatium salmonijlorum 

Lomatium suksdorfii 

Lomatium tuberosum 

Lomatium waisonii 

Lomatogonium rotatum 

Luina serpentina 

Lupinus biddlei 

Lupinus cusickii 

Lupinus sabinii(=sabianus) 

Lupinus sulphureus van kincaidii 

Lupinus uncialis 

Luzula arcuata 

Lycopodium complanatum 

Lycopodium dendroideum 



x 
x 



X 

X 



X 
X 
X 



X 

X 
X 



X 

X 



X 
X 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 



X 
X 



X 

X 
X 



Ea&tsme Dh.ut EIS/Atpemicx 2- J /Paw; 165 



Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* (continued) 



Species 



OR/WA WY MT ID 



NV UT 



Forest Service 
Region 

Rl R4 R6 



Lycopodium inundatum 

Lycopodium selago 

Lycopodium sitchense 

Machaerocarpus californicus 

Meconella oregana x 

Meesia longiseta 

Mellca striata 

Smooth stickleleaf, Mentzelia mollis 

Packard's mentzelia, Mentzelia packardiae x 

Mertensia belle 

bank monkeyflower, Mimuhis cliuicola 

Mimulus evanescens x 

Mimulus hymenophyllus x 

Mimulus jepsonii 

Mimulus jungermannioides x 

Mimulus palulus x 

Mimulus primuloides 

Mimulus pygmaeus x 

Mimulus suksdorfii 

Mimulus tricolor 

Mimulus washingtonensis var. washintoniensis x 

Mimulus washingtonensis ampliatus 

Montia diffusa 

Montia howellii x 

Muhlenbergia glomerata 

Myosurus sessilis (=M. minimus) 

ssp. apus var. sessiliflor x 

Navarretia tagetina x 

Nemacladus rigidus 

Nicotiana attenuata 

Nymphaea tetragona 

St. Anthony evening primrose, 
Oenothera psammophila 

dwarf evening primrose, Oenothera pygmaea x 

Ophioglossum pusillium x 

Ophioglossum vulgatum 

Orchis rotundifolia 

Orobanche pinorum 



x 

X 



X 
X 



x 

X 



x x 



x 
x 



x 
x 
x 
x 



X 

X 



BLM 



Species 



OR/WA WY MT ED NV UT 



SfcvSFTJVE VEKTF.BK.-nr ilSO PlMIT SPECIES 



Forest Service 
Re gion 

Rl R4 R6 



Orogenla Jus iformia 

rosy owl-clover, Orthocarpus bracteosus x 

Swallen mountain-ricegrass, Oryzopsis swallenii 

Oxypolis occidentalis 

Challis crazyweed, 

Oxytropis besseyi var. salmonensis 

wanapum crazyweed, 

Oxytropis campestris var. wanapum x 

Oxytropis podocarpa 

Parnassia kotzebuei 

Pedicularis rainierensis 

Pediocactus simponsii robustior 

Pellaea brachyptera 

Pellaea breweri 

Pellaea bridgesii 

Penstemon barrettiae x 

Penstemon glaucinus x 

Idaho penstemon, Penstemon idahoensis 

Janish's penstemon, Penstamonjanishiae 

Lemhi penstemon, Penstemon lemhiensis 

Penstemon peckii x 

red-rooted yampah, Perideridia erythrorhiza x 

chelan rockmat, Petrophytum cinerascens x 

Phacelia Jranklinii 

sticky phacelia, Phacelia lenta x 

Phacelia lyalli 

small-flower phacelia, Phacelia minutissima x 

Phlox kelseyi var. kelseyi 

Phlox kelseyi var. missoulensis 

Phlox multijlora 

tufted twinpod, Physaria condensata 

Physaria didymocarpa var. didymorcarpa 

Salmon twin bladderpod, 
Physaria didymocarpa var. lyrata 

Dorn's twinpod, Physaria dornii 

dot lichen, Physcia semipinnata 

nail lichen, Pilophorus acicularis 

Pityrogramma trianguleria 

Choris' bog-orchid, Platanlhera chorisiana x 

Platanthera obtusata 

Platanthera sparsijlora 

Pleuropogon oregonus x 



x 
x 

x 



X X 

X 



X 
X 



X 

A 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 



X 
X 



X X 



X 
X 
X 

x 



KMT BIS/Aff 






Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* (continued) 



Species 



BLM 

OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Re gion 

Rl R4 R6 



Poa abbreuiata marshii . 

Poa grayana 

Poa laxijlora 

Polemonium carneum 

Polemonium pectina.tu.rn 

Polemonium viscosum 

Polygonum douglasii spp. auetines 

Polypodium glyoyrrhiza 

Polystichum braunii 

Potamogeton obtusifolius 

Cotlam cinquefoil, Potentilla cottamii 

Potentilla diuersifolia var. perdissecta 

Potentilla nivea 

Potentilla quinquefolia 

Potentilla villosa var. paruiflora 

Primula alcalina 

Primula cusickiana 

Psathyrotes annua 

Pseudocyphellaria anthraspis 

Psilocarphus tenellus 

Ranunculus longirostris 

Ranunculus hvis 

Ranunculus oresterus 

Ranunculus reconditus 

Rhynchospora alba 

Ribes cereum var. colubrinum 

Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. cognatum 

Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. irriguum 

Ribes wolfti 

RomanzoJJlia elchensis 

Columbia cress. Rorippa columbiae 

Rubus acaulis 

Bartons' blackberry, Rubus bartonianus 

Rubus nigerrimus 

Rubus pubescens 

Rubus spectabilis 

Salicornia rubra 

Salix barrattiana 



x 

X 
X 



X 
X 

x 



X 
X 



X 

X 
X 
X 



X 

X 



x 

X 



X 
X 

X 



X 
X 
X 

X 



X 
X 

X 

X 

X 



x 

X 
X 



/Arrjixuix 21/Pagv. 168 



■.-.::'.:::: ■: 



If^f-^'ifN 



Species 



BLM 
OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Re gion 

Rl R4 R6 



Salix Candida 

Salixfarriae 

Salix maccalliana 

Salix pedicellaris 

Salix pseudomonticola 

Salix tweedyi 

Salix vestitav&r. erecta 

Salix wolfiivar. wolfd 

Sanicula graveolens 

Sanicula marilandica 

Saussurea densa 

Saussurea weberi 

Saxifraga adscendens vat oregonensis 

Tobias' saxifrage, 

Saxifraga bryophora var. tobiasiae 

Saxifraga cernua 

Saxifraga debilis 

Saxifraga temperativa 

Tolmie's saxifrage, 
Saxifraga tolmie var. ledijolia 

Scheuchzeria palustris 

Scheuchzeria palustris var. americana 

Scirpus cyperinus 

Scirpus hudsonianus 

Scirpus subterminallis 

Scribneria bolanderi 

Scutellaria nana nana 

Sedum lanceolatum var. rugicolum 

Senecio dimorphophyllus 

Senecio ertterae 

Senecio porleri 

Sidalcea oregana var. calva 

Silene nuda ssp. insectivora 

Silene seelyi 

Silene spaldingii 

Sisyrinchium sarmentosum 

Sisyrinchium septenrionale 

Sphaeromeria potentilloides 

Sphaerophorus globosus 

Spiraea densifiora var. splendens 

Spiranthes romanzojlana var. porrifolia 



x 

X 
X 



X 
X 



x 

X 
X 



X 

X 



X 
X 
X 



X 
X 



X 
X 



X 
X 



X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 



X 
X 



E.Mn-awn Dravt EIS/Aws/von. 2-1 /Pack 169 



Table 4. Sensitive Vertebrate and Plant Species: BLM and Forest Service 
Regions in the ICBEMP Project Area* (continued) 



Species 



BLM 
OR/WA WY MT ED NV UT 



Forest Service 
Region 

Rl R4 R6 



Sorobolus asper 

Stanleya confertijlora 

Stipa viridula 

Streptopus streptopoid.es 

Streptopus streptopoides var. brevipes 

Stylocline fdaginea 

Stylocline psilocarphoides 

Suksdorfia violacea 

Sullivantia oregana 

Synthyris platycarpa 

Tauschia hooueri 

Tauschia stricklandii 

Taucrium canadense ssp. viscidum 

Tellima grandiflora 

Teucrium anadense occidenlale 

Texosporium sancti-jacobi 

Thalictrum alpinum var. hebetum 

Thallctrum dasycarpum 

worm lichen, Thamnolia vermicularis 

Thelypodium brachycarpum 

Thelypodium eucosmum 

Thelypodium howellii ssp. howellii 

purple thick-leaved thelopody, 
Thelypodium laciniatrum streptanthoides 

wavy-leaf thelypody, Thelypodium repandum 

Thalicirum alpinum 

Thelypteria neuadensis 

Thelypteria phegopteris 

Stanley thlaspi, Thlaspi aileeniae 

Thlaspi parvijlorum 

Tillaecea aquatica 

out-of-tune sticky tofieldia, 
Tofieldia glutinosa var. absona 

Townsendia montana 

Townsendia parryi 

Townsendia scapigera 

Triantella arctica 

Triantella latifolia 



x 
x 

X 



X 

X 



X 

X 



X 

X 

X 



X 

X 
X 



X 
X 



X 
X 

X 

X 
X 



X 

X 



... "".'... ' . 

■ ■■■■■■■■ ■" .:...■. 



: 



Species 



BLM 
OR/WA WY MT ID NV UT 



Forest Service 
Region 

Rl R4 R6 



Trifolium eriocephalum 

Trifolium gymnocarpon 

Trifolium leibergii 

Trifolium owyheense 

Trifolium plumosum amplijolium 

Trifolium tkompsonii 

Trollius laxus var. albiflorus 

Ulota megalospora 

Utricularia minor 

Vaccinium myrtilloides 

Vaccinium oxycoccos 

Veratrum calijornicum 

Viola renifolia 

Idaho range lichen, 
Xanthoparmelia idahoensis 

Idaho strawberry, Waldsteinia idahoensis 

Woljjia columbiana 

Idaho range lichen, 
Xanthoparmelia idahoensis 



x 
x 



X 

X 



X 

X 



X 

X 



X 
X 
X 



* Excluding federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species. 

SOURCES: 

BLM State Lists: 

Idaho - Mallet, J. and Hahn, M.G. 1996. Sensitive Species Supplement to the Master Memorandum of Understanding 
Between the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Bureau of Land Management, signed by Director, Idaho Fish and 
Game and Idaho State Director, BLM; attachments: Sensitive Species List-Animals, Sensitive Species List-Plants. List 
covers only those BLM districts that lie wholly or in part within the ICBEMP project area. 

Montana - (1) US Fish & Wildlife Service. 1996. Memorandum to Deputy State Director, Division of Resources, Montana 
State Office, BLM, from Field Supervisor, Montana Field Office, USDI Fish and Wildlife Servic, regarding Section 7 
Consultation-Implementation of Standards for Rangeland Health, Appendix F and Appendix G, Helena, Montana, USDI 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. (2) USDI Bureau of Land Management, Manual 6840 Supplement, Special 
Status Species Management, April 8, 1996, 31 pp. (3) D. McCleerey, BLM Garnet Resource Area, Butte District, personal 
communication 3/14/97. List covers only those BLM districts that lie wholly or in part within the ICBEMP project area. 

Nevada - Morgan, A.J. 1996. (1) Instruction Memorandum No. NV-96-019, from State Director, Nevada, to District 
Managers, Nevada, regarding Nevada Sensitive Species List, dated March 20, 1996, Reno, NV: USDI BLM Nevada State 
Office; attachments; (a) List of Sensitive Wildlife Species Agreed by Nevada Department of Fish and Game and the Nevada 
State Office of BLM, signed 4/78; (b) USDI Fish and WildlifeService, Nevada State Office, Candidate and Proposed Species 
of Nevada, updated February 8, 1995. (2) Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Sensitive Plant Occurrences within the 
Columbia Basin, unpublished data, 3/18/97. (3) District Biologists, BLM Elko and Winnemucca Districts, personal 
communcation, 3/17/97. List covers only those BLM districts that lie wholly or in part within the ICBEMP project area. 

Oregon/Washington - (1) BLM Oregon/Washington Special Species Status Database. 1997. (2) B.Hill, BLM State Office 
Special Status Species Biologist, personal communication, 3/17/97. List covers only those BLM districts that lie wholly or 
in part within the ICBEMP project area. 

Utah - Lamb, GW. 1996. (1) Instruction Memorandum No. UT96-69, from State Director to AFOs, regarding Interim Utah 
Bureau of Land Management Sensitive List Policy, dated August 28, 1996, Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Office, USDI, 
BLM; attachments: (a) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Native Utah Wildlife Species of Special Concern (6 pp); (b) 



Modified Interagency Rare Plant Working Group Plant List (4 pp). (2) J. Brown, BLM Salt Lake District, personal 
communication. 3/17/97. List covers only those BLM districts that lie wholly or in part within the ICBEMP project area. 

Wyoming - (1) Fertig, W. 1996. Wyoming Plant Species of Special Concern, 1996 edition, Laramie, WY: Wyoming Natural 
Diversity Database; (2) Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Nongame Bird andMammal Plan. (3) J. Dunder, BLM Green 
River Resource Area, Rock Springs District, personal communication, 3/17/97. (4) D. Roberts, BLM State Office, personal 
communication, 3/17/97. List covers only those BLM districts that lie wholly or in part within the ICBEMP project area. 

Forest Service Region Lists: 

Rl - Jolly, D. F. 1994. Update of Northern Region Sensitive Species List (1994), Memorandum to Forest Supervisors from 
Regional Forester, dated June 10, 1994; attachments: (a) TES List Update Changes, Northern Region Final, 6/94 (2 pp); (b) 
Regional Briefing, Final Region 1 Sensitive Species Update, Summary 1994 (2 pp); (c) Table 1 -Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive 
Plants, June 94, Final (14 pp). List is for only those National Forests in Region 1 that lie wholly or in part within the 
ICBEMP Project Area. 

R4 - (1) Wildlife, Fish & Rare Plant Staff, R4, 1995. Updated Proposed, Endangered, Theatened. and Sensitive (PETS) 
Species List for R4, Memorandum from T. C. Lanier, dated 1 1/95; attachment: Intermountain Region Proposed, 
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species (11/95 Update), Known/Suspected Distribution By Forest (23 pp). (2) K. 
Ramsey, Fisheries Biologist, Humboldt National Forest, 3/17/97. Lists are for only those National Forests that lie wholly 
or in part within the ICBEMP Project Area. 

R6 - (1) Document !2670 ID 90-1, Sensitive Animal List, Region 6, U.S. Forest Service, revised March 1989, with 
annotations dated 12/30/96; Sensitive Plant List, Region 6, U.S. Forest Service, Revised March 1991, with annotations 
dated 12/30/96 (37 pp). (2) P. Ormsbee, Wildlife Ecologist, Willamette National Forest, personal communication, 3/18/97. 
Lists are for only those National Forests that lie wholly or in part within the ICBEMP Project Area. 




Appendix 2-1. 

Map 1. 

Distribution of 

Borax Lake Chub and Hutton Tui Chub 



INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROIECT 

Draft EASTSIDE EIS 
1996 



BBM Historical Distribution /x/ Major Rivers 

of Borax Lake Chub ,&.,«,. „ 

^_^ ***r Ma/or Roads 

f^SSSa Current Distribution *.+ 

of Borax Lake Chub *** Els Are * Border 

C—3 Historical Distribution **""' Ecological Reporting 

of Hutton Tui Chub Unlt Border * 

MM current Distribution ° c ' t/es and Towns 
of Hutton Tui Chub 



*Ecological reporting unit names and numbers are found on Map 1-1. 




Appendix 2-1. 

Map 2. 
Distribution of 
Foskett Speckled Dace and Shortnose Sucker 



INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Draft EASTSIDE EIS 
1996 



' Historical Distribution • r ** // Major Rivers 

of Fosket Speckled Dace ^.,, 

r <*V> Mapr Roads 

SSSS Current Distribution *.^ 

of Fosket Speckled Dace ^* Els Areii Border 

«" - * Ecological Reporting 
Unit Border* 



I listorical Distribution 
of Shortnose Sucker 



1 1 I I 1 1 Current Distribution 
of Shortnose Sucker 



° Cities and Towns 



*Ecological reporting unit names and numbers are found on Map 1-1 




Appendix 2-1. 

Map 3. 

Distribution of 

Lost River Sucker and Warner Sucker 



INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Draft EASTSIDE EIS 
1996 



1 ' Historical Distribution ^^ Major Rivers 

of Lost River Sucker *.,. , , . 

^V^ Mapr Roads 

f*S EIS Area Border 



tZZ2 Current Distribution 
of Lost River Sucker 

1 ■ ! Historical Distribution 
of Warner sucker 

Current Distribution 
of Warner sucker 



«^* - ' Ecological Reporting 
Unit Border* 

° Cities and Towns 



"Ecological reporting unit names and numbers are found on Map 1-1. 




Appendix 24.. 

Map 4. 

Distribution of 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 



INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Draft EASTSDDE EIS 
1996 



■■■ Historical Distribute 



'" v ' Major Rivers 

of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout x>. ,. 

^^ ^V- Major Roads 

^^ Current Distribution ~* 

of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout ^" Els Area Border 

•**"""'' Ecological Reporting 
Unit Border* 

Cities and Towns 



"Ecological reporting unit names and numbers are found on Map 7-J. 




Appendix 24 

Map 5 

Snake River Salmon 

High Priority Watersheds 

BLM and Forest Service 
Administered Lands Only 



INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
1996 



50 



50 100 150 km 



EE~3 High Priority Watershed 
7X7 Major Streams 
^V - Major Roads 
< A ^ CIS Area Border 
«•""-' CRU Boundaries 



*Ecological reporting unit names and numbers are found on Map 1-1. 





OREGON 



s* 



**s 



WYOMING 



i 



CALIFORNIA 



IDAHO _ 

NEVADA 



v\ 



I UTAH 



"^^ ; 






Appendix 2-L 

Map 6 

Critical Habitat for Snake River 

Spring, Summer, and Fall Chinook Salmon 

and Snake River Sockeye Salmon** 

BLM and Forest Service 
Administered Lands Only 



INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Project Area 
"1996 



CZZ3 Critical Habitat 

/X/ Major Rivers 

^V Major Roads 

**** EIS Area Border 



"Ecological reporting unit names and numbers are found on Map 1-1. 

**4lh field hydrologic unit codes containing 
critical habitat for listed Snake River salmon species 
(Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 247, Dec. 28, 1993). 




Recovery Zone 



North Cascades 




Map 7. Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone - North Cascades 



RIZZLY BeARMk 



,COVERY 



Zones 




MONTANA 



Yellowstone 








Present grizzly bear ecosystems in the 
conterminous 48 States, 1990. 




Map 8. Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones 













Appendix 2-2 

Rangeland Succession 
Models and Noxious 

Weeds 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix F) 




This Appendix contains 
the following items: 

• Succession Models for 

Rangeland 

• Climax Model. 

• State & Transition 
Model 

• Noxious Weed. 

Management 



:'".■."■■'■ V:i\-i' 1C'^'.-. Z ] ;-v--'--""S™--^ 



Succession Models for Rangeland 
Vegetation 

Climax Model 

The "climax" model of rangeland vegetation succession ~ which is essentially vegetation change ~ 
uses concepts of climax and plant succession proposed by Clements (1916) and the application of 
these concepts to rangelands by Sampson (1919). The climax model is essentially a model upon 
which range condition, labeled typically as excellent, good, fair, or poor, is assessed (see Figure 1: 
Climax model for vegetation succession). As used, the climax model assumes three things. (1) A 
vegetation type has only one stable state, the climax, which is a stable plant community 
determined by climate. (2) Any change in the plant community away from climax, which is referred 
to as retrogression, which is caused by improper livestock grazing, results in an unstable state 
which can be reversed by reduction, manipulation, or elimination of livestock grazing. This 
reversal represents a movement of the plant community back towards the climax community, 
which is referred to as secondary succession. Thus, retrogression and secondary succession are 
opposite pathways of vegetation change; retrogression leads vegetation away from climax and thus 
into poorer condition, and secondary succession leads vegetation toward climax or excellent 
condition. (3) For a given plant community, its condition can change from poor to excellent or from 
excellent to poor. The change is continuous, along a continuum (Vavra et al. 1994). 



Climax 



FT 



Weed Stage 



Excellent 



Good 



Fair 



Poor 



Figure 1. Climax model for 
vegetation succession - The climax 
model of vegetation succession and 
the approximate relationships 
between range condition and degree 
of retrogression from climax 
conditions. (Adapted from Ecological 
Implications of Livestock Herbivory in 
the West.) 



State and Transition Model 

According to the "state and transition" model (see Figure 2: State and transition model for 
sagebrush grass ecosystems), "states" are recognizable, relatively stable groups of species 
occupying a site. Forces that cause vegetation to cross a threshold and move toward another state 
are known as transitions. Once a threshold is crossed, removal of the force will not result in 
reversal, that is, secondary succession back to climax. Thus, vegetation in this model does not 
necessarily succeed or retrogress continuously, in a linear way, with change in livestock grazing 
pressure, as the climax model asserts (adapted from Vavra et al. 1994). 






>;V : V * : - xV 



"Climax" 

I. Open stand of 

sagebrush with 

productive 

herbaceous 

perennial 

understory. 




II. Dense 

sagebrush cover. 

Depleted perennial 

herbaceous 

understory with 

sagebrush 

seedlings present. 



T6 



T3 



T4 



III. Recently 

burned. Perennial 

herbaceous 

species and 

sagebrush 

seedlings 

present. 



IV. Dense 

sagebrush cover. 

Abundant annuals, 

few herbaceous 

perennials and 

sagebrush 

seedlings present. 



T8 



T9 



V. Recently 

burned. 

Dominated 

by annuals 

with sagebrush 

seedlings 

present. 



T10 



T11 



VI. Repeated 
burns. Only 
annuals with- 
out perennial 
herbaceous 
species or 
sagebrush 
present. 



T12 



T12 



Figure 2. - State and Transition Model for Sagebrush Grass Ecosystem. States I, II, and III exist in 
areas without annual species (for example, cheatgrass or medusahead). 

State I is the "climax" or condition undisturbed by livestock grazing. Transition arrow Tl represents heauy 
grazing which causes deterioration of the understory and increased density and vigor of sagebrush. 

State II is dominated by sagebrush and will remain stable for long periods of time. Transition T3 is fire or 
some other force (for example, insects, disease, or an herbivore that eats sagebrush) that reduces the 
sagebrush, which permits the understory to improve (State III). 

With proper livestock grazing management (Transition T5). State in can move back to a slate resembling 
State I. With heavy grazing (Transition T4), State in will move to State II, and sagebrush will again 
dominate the stand. State TV represents the situation in a heavily grazed area where a well-adapted 
annual-like cheatgrass exists. Continuous heavily grazing (Transition T6) of State II results in State IV, and 
perennials in the understory have been replaced by annuals. 

The transitions of State IV to State V (Transition T8), and State V to State VI (Transition T10) represents 
the role of fires in the conversion to a stable cheatgrass-dominated plant community. Transition T12 
represents intervention by humans, such as seeding of exotic perennial grasses, like crested wheatgrass. 
The Bureau of Land Management, for example, plants strips of vegetative fuel breaks consisting of crested 
wheatgrass, other grasses, forbs and shrubs to slow the spread of fires. (Adapted from Ecological 
Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West). 



Noxious Weed Management 

Introduction 

The magnitude and complexity of noxious rangeland weeds in the assessment area, combined with 
their cost of control, necessitates using Integrated Weed Management (IWM). IWM involves the use 
of several control techniques in a well-planned, coordinated, and organized program to reduce the 
impact of weeds on rangelands. Inventory and mapping is the first phase of any IWM program. The 
second phase includes prioritizing weed problems and choosing and implementing control 
techniques strategically for a particular weed management unit on the ground. The third phase is 
adopting proper range management practices as a portion of the IWM program. The IWM program 
must fit into an overall range management plan. 






Integrated Weed Management 

Step 1 . Inventory and Mapping 

The goal of inventory and mapping is to determine and record the weed species present, the area 
infested, the density of the infestation, the rangeland under threat of invasion, the soils and range 
vegetation types, and other site factors pertinent to successfully managing infested rangeland and 
rangeland susceptible to invasion. Inventories and mapping can be conducted by field surveys, 
aerial photography, and geographic information systems. 

Planning and Implementation 

Planning is the process by which weed problems and solutions are identified and prioritized. In 
addition, an economic plan of action is developed to provide direction for implementing the IWM 
program. Implementing control techniques includes (1) preventing encroachment into uninfested 
rangeland, (2) detecting and eradicating new introductions, (3) containing large-scale infestations, 
(4) controlling large-scale infestations using an integrated approach, and often (5) revegetation. 
The key component of any successful weed management program is sustained effort, constant 
evaluation, and the adoption of improved strategies. 

Step 2. Preventing Weed Encroachment 

Preventing the introduction of rangeland weeds is the most practical and cost-effective method for 
their management. Prevention programs include such techniques as limiting weed seed dispersal, 
minimizing soil disturbance, and properly managing desirable vegetation. New weed introductions 
can be minimized by (1) using weed seed free hay, feed grain, straw, or mulch, (2) refraining from 
driving vehicles and machinery through weed infestations and, before driving from a weed infested 
area to an uninfested area, washing the undercarriage of vehicles and machinery, (3) permitting 
livestock to graze weed infested areas only when weeds are not flowering or producing seeds, or, if 
livestock are grazing weed infested areas, moving them to a holding area for about 14 days before 
moving them to weed-free areas, (4) requesting that campers, hikers, and sportsmen who are 
recreating in weed infested areas, brush and clean themselves and their equipment before moving 
to uninfested areas, (5) minimizing unnecessary soil disturbance by vehicles, machinery, waterflow, 
and livestock, and (6) managing grasses for vigor and competition with weeds. 

Step 3. Detecting and Eradicating New Introductions 

Early detection and systematic eradication of weed introductions are central to IWM. Weeds 
encroach typically by establishing small "satellite" infestations, that are generally the spreading 
front of the large infestation. Eradication involves total removal of the weed and is achievable on a 
small scale. An eradication program involves delimiting the boundaries of the infestation, both on 
the ground and on maps, determining the proper control procedures, and the number and timing 
of follow-up applications. This generally requires aggressive annual applications of herbicides. 
Revegetation of infested areas might be required to eradicate weeds in areas that do not have an 
understory of desirable species that can reoccupy the area after weeds are controlled. Eradication of 
small patches requires continual monitoring and evaluation to ensure successful removal of the weed. 

Step 4. Containing Large-Scale Infestations 

Containment programs are generally used to restrict the encroachment of large-scale weed 
infestations. Studies have shown that containing weed infestations, which are too large to 
eradicate, is cost-effective because it preserves neighboring uninfested rangeland and enhances the 
success of future large-scale control programs. Containing a large-scale infestation requires using 
preventive techniques and spraying herbicides on the border of weed infestations to stop the 
advancing front of weed encroachment. Containment programs typically require a long-term 






commitment to herbicide application because they are designed to limit spread and are not 
designed to modify or reduce the infestation level. Roadways and railways, where weed infestations 
often begin, should be subjected to a constant prevention and containment program. 

Step 5. Controlling Large-Scale Infestations 

Most successful large-scale weed control programs are completed in a series of steps. Weed control 
areas should be divided into smaller units to make them more manageable. Weed control should 
be implemented unit by unit at a rate compatible with economic objectives. 

Initially, large-scale weed control should focus on rangeland sites with an understory of residual 
grasses and the highest potential productivity. Suppressed grasses have the greatest chance of 
reestablishing dominance on these sites. These areas areas must be spot treated each year to 
ensure control and minimize reinvasion. In most cases, some percentage of the management unit 
will require that control measures be repeatedly applied until the weed seed bank and root reserves 
are exhausted. 

Next, control efforts should focus on the sites adjacent to those initially treated to minimize 
reintroduction of the weeds. Usually, large-scale control is most effectively applied from the 
outside of the weed management unit inward toward its center. Selection and application of weed 
control techniques in large-scale control programs depends on the specific circumstances for each 
portion of the management unit. Control techniques used in one area of the management unit 
might be inappropriate for another area. For example, sheep grazing leafy spurge in one area 
might provide cost-effective control, but sheep do not readily consume spotted knapweed and 
herbicides might be more appropriate. Similarly, the most effective herbicide for a particular weed 
species might not be labeled for use in an environmentally sensitive area. Selection will depend on 
the (1) weed species, (2) effectiveness of the control technique, (3) availability of control agents or 
grazing animals, (4) land use, (5) length of time required for control, (6) environmental 
considerations, and (7) relative cost of the control techniques. 

Researchers are currently determining if combining treatments will provide a synergistic (the 
effects of the treatment combination are greater than the sum effects of each treatment applied 
individually) response in controlling weeds. Some preliminary evidence suggests most control 
techniques are compatible. The later discussions of each weed species in this report include 
recommendations for treatment combinations that might be effective. 

Step 6. Revegetation 

Revegetation with desirable plants might be the best long-term alternative for controlling weeds on 
sites without an understory of desirable species. Establishing competitive grasses can minimize 
there invasion of rangeland weeds and provide excellent forage production. In most areas, a fall 
herbicide application after weeds have emerged with subsequent plowing or disking and drill 
seeding is most effective for establishing desirable species. 

Step 7. Proper Range Management 

Proper range management is especially critical during the management phase after weed control. 
Proper livestock grazing is essential to maintain competitive desirable plants, which will help 
prevent weed reinvasion after control. A grazing plan should be developed for any management 
unit involved in a weed management program. The plan should include altering the season of use 
and stocking rates to achieve moderate utilization of the herbaceous component. Grazing systems 
should rotate livestock to permit plants to recover before being regrazed and should promote litter 
accumulation. Range monitoring and annual evaluations should be conducted to determine the 
adequacy of existing management. 



Noxious Weed Control Guidelines for an 
IWM Strategy 

Use the following cultural, physical, biological, and chemical control guidelines to implement and 
determine the best method(s) for an integrated approach to noxious weed management. (U.S. 
Department of thk. Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Noxious weed strategy for Oregon/ 
Washington. Oregon State Office. Portland, Oregon. BLM/OR/WA/PT-94/36+4220.9.) 

Cultural 

Prevention 

1. Develop available preventive measures, such as quarantine and closure, to reduce the 
spread of the infestation. 

2. Determine whether policy and laws allow for the use of all preventive measures, including 
local quarantine and closure. 

3. If past management activities have allowed the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, 
determine how to change management after selecting a treatment method. 

Livestock Manipulation 

1. Determine whether changes in livestock grazing will affect the target weeds. Reduced grazing 
may allow for increased competition from beneficial vegetation or just allow for more seeds to 
be disseminated. Increased grazing may reduce beneficial vegetation or may be used to 
reduce seed source. 

2. Determine whether changes in movement or type of livestock is necessary to reduce or 
contain the infestation due to movement of seeds on or in the animals. 

3. Determine whether containing livestock in a weed free area prior to introduction to the area 
would prevent new infestations. 

Wildlife Manipulation 

1 . Determine whether wildlife or wildlife feeding programs can be managed to reduce weed infestations. 

2. Determine feasibility of changes in wildlife movement that would reduce or contain the 
infestation due to movement of seeds on or in the animals. 

Soil Disturbance Activities 

1. Revegetate all bare soil following disturbance. 

2. Select plant species that will reduce the spread of noxious weeds. 

3. Defer soil disturbance if possible until weeds are controlled or under management. 

Rock Sources 

1. Develop rock source management plans. 

2. Keep use of rock source confined to existing contaminated roads. 

3. Keep new or "clean" rock stockpiles separate from contaminated stockpiles. 

4. Obtain rock from uncontaminated sources. 



■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ................... . . .... ............................... ■■:.... ■ ■■■ . ■■ - .-■■--.. ■- .; ■ .. ■■ 

... ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ . 

: ^: :i^ :-:-::>::^.:: ^i-^ :-:;:;:^>>-:^--:o-: V: -:■ : ^:-:-": o": ■:■ :--:>:--:-:¥:--:::-:::-:::::::>::-:>>-:-:::--:::-:::-^--- ■■-■■■-: i": V:-:-": ^:--: -:-": ■:-:-:■:■:-:■:■ : -:-":-:- :-:■ :"-:< ■:■:-■:-■■:■:-:-:-:-:: :"-:- :■:■: -^: :>:.>■:■:■:■: :::":>-:-: ".-: ::.-" ■■■.■■.■■■:■■:,:::■■■-■■■ :■■■■,:■■:■.■:■:■.■:■■■■■■■■■■;■:■:-■::■■■■ ■■:-■ : ■■:■:, ,■■■■:■■■:■:■■■:■:■:■ ■■■■■:■: .:■;■■:■■ ■■■■ ■■■ v ;-----:--: : -:--: : -:; ; : : -:-:--:v:-.-: : -rt--: :: : y : : : : : - : - : ' ■ ^-0™-:-^:^ :r :.]':'. 

Public Use 

1. Determine most feasible land use to reduce and prevent infestations. 

2. Determine whether specific public awareness programs could reduce the infestation or 
control the spread of weeds. 

3. Determine whether exclusion is a possibility and how it would affect the weed infestation. 

Physical 

Manual Control 

1. Determine whether hoeing or "grubbing" will reduce (or increase) the infestation. 

2. Determine whether hand pulling the weeds reduces the seed source. 

Mechanical Control 

1 . Evaluate terrain to allow for mowing and determine whether it is an acceptable option for 
control of the spread of seeds. 

2. Evaluate cultivation and other conventional farming practices options that could be used 
cost effectively. 

Control by Burning 

1 . Determine whether policy and laws allow controlled burning and address regulations 
regarding smoke management. 

2. Determine whether the terrain and vegetative cover allow for a controlled burn program. 

3. Evaluate a controlled burn program to reduce the infestation. 

4. Determine long-term effect of burning on nontarget species. 

Biological 

Natural Competition 

1 . Determine whether there are naturally occurring agents within the ecosystem which can 
reduce the infestation. 

2. Determine which elements affect naturally occurring control agents. Determine whether 
these elements can be modified to reduce the negative effect on these agents. Determine 
whether these elements can be enhanced to increase the effectiveness of these agents on the 
weed infestation. 

Introduced Competition 

1 . Determine whether biological control agents can be introduced into the ecosystem to reduce 
the amount of infestation. 

2. Determine which introduced biological agents provide an acceptable control method for this 
infestation. 

3. Evaluate if the biological control agent has been tested for adverse effects against all 
nontarget species within the treatment area. 

4. Determine whether the introduced biological agent can survive in the environment of the 
treatment area. 

5. Determine whether policy and laws allow for the introduction of biological control agents. 

'..'...■■■■■■.......'.'''■'.....'.''.'''"""''."■ 



..'. '..'. ' '■ ■' 



6. Determine whether policy and laws allow for introduction and grazing of livestock as a 
biological control measure. 



Fertilization 

1 . Determine whether chemical fertilization would reduce the amount of weeds by increasing 
competition of beneficial plant species. 

2. Determine whether increased nitrogen (or other nutrients) would reduce weeds due to direct 
effect (for example. Curlycup gumweed). 

Pesticides 

1 . Evaluate the acceptability of herbicides (or other pesticides) to control the infestation. 

2. Determine whether pesticides are labeled for use on the target weed and use on the infested 
site (consider nontarget plants, soil type, groundwater location, topography, climate, state 
labeling). Determine the most effective application techniques. 

3. Determine the most effective and cost-efficient types of conventional application equipment. 

4. Determine whether properly trained personnel are available to apply the pesticides. 



Table A. Broad-scale cover types in the project area and their susceptibility to invasion by 
25 weed species (24 legally declared noxious, plus cheatgrass). 



Cover Type 




cf* 




d* 


cf 


cf 


cf 




<f 




d* 


<f> 


<f 


*? 

♦ 


^ 


• 


^ 


# 


V s 








L 


cf 

u 


«/ 


Alpine Tundra 


L 2 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


h 


L 


M 


M 


L 


L 


L 


M 


L 


L 


M 


L 


L 


L 


L 


Aspen 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


L 


U 


M 


u 


M 


Big Sagebrush 


H 


U 


ivi 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


U 


M 


M 


L 


M 


M 


L 


L 


H 


M 


M 


L 


M 


U 


H 


M 


Bitterbrush/ 
Bluebunch 
Wheatgrass 


H 


M 


M 


H 


M 


U 


M 


M 


U 


u 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


L 


L 


M 


M 


M 


L 


U 


M 


U 


M 


Chokecherry/ 
Serviceberry/Rose 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


u 


M 


Cottonwood /Willow 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


H 


M 


L 


H 


L 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


u 


M 


Cropland/ 
Hay/Pasture 


M 


M 


H 


M 


H 


M 


H 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


H 


M 


M 


L 


M 


M 


u 


M 


Engelmann Spruce/ 
Subalpine Fir 


H 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


H 


H 


L 


M 


L 


M 


M 


L 


M 


M 


M 


U 


M 


u 


M 


Exotic Forbs/ 
Annual Grass 


H 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


H 


H 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


H 


H 


M 


M 


H 


M 


M 


Fescue-Bunchgrass 


H 


H 


M 


H 


H 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


H 


H 


M 


H 


M 


L 


L 


H 


H 


H 


L 


M 


H 


H 


M 


Grand Fir/White Fir 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


L 


M 


L 


M 


U 


L 


M 


M 


M 


U 


M 


u 


M 


Herbaceous 
Wetlands 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


M 


H 


M 


L 


H 


H 


M 


L 


M 


L 


H 


M 


M 


M 


H 


H 


M 


H 


u 


M 


Interior Douglas-fir 


H 


H 


M 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


L 


M 


H 


u 


M 


Interior Ponderosa 
Pine 


H 


M 


M 


H 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


L 


L 


M 


M 


M 


L 


M 


H 


u 


M 



Table A. Broad-scale cover types in the project area and their susceptibility to invasion by 
25 weed species (24 legally declared noxious, plus cheatgrass) (cont). 



Cover Type 



^ G^ cf Cf cf C? Cf G & & G^ G^ 



G^ G<^ • <P • ^ # 



S^ ^* # 

V \> V s 



">° <«- 4? 4> 



Juniper/ M 
Sagebrush 

Juniper Woodlands M 

Limber Pine M 

Lodgepole Pine M 

Low Sagebrush M 

Mixed-Conifer H 
Woodlands 

Mountain Big H 
Sagebrush 

Mountain Hemlock M 

Mountain Mahogany M 

Native Forb M 

Oregon White Oak M 

Pacific Ponderosa M 
Pine 

Pacific Silver Fir/ M 
Mountain Hemlock 



MMMMUMMMUMML MML 



M 
M 
M 
U 

M 

M 

M 
M 
M 
U 
M 



M M 

M M 

M M 

M M 

M M 



M 

M 
M 
M 
M 

M 



M 



M U 

M M 

M M 

U U 

H M 



M 



M M 

M M 

M M 

M M 

M M 



M 

M 
M 
M 
M 
M 



M M 

M M 

M M 

M M 

M M 



M 

M 
H 
M 
M 

M 



Red Fir M M M M M M M 

Salt Desert Shrub M M M L L ML 

Shrub or Herb/ M M M M M M M 
Tree Regen 

Shrub Wetlands M H M M H M M 



M 



M 
M 
M 
U 

M 

M 



M M 

M U 

M M 

M M 

M M 



MMMMMMMM 



M M 
M L 
M H 



U M 

M M 

M M 

U M 

U H 



U 



M 



M M 

U M 

M M 

M M 

M M 

M M 

M M 

L M 

M M 



M 
M 
M 

M 

M 

M 

M 
M 
M 
M 
M 

M 

M 
M 
M 



L 
M 
M 
L 

L 



L 
M 
M 

M 
M 



L 

L 
M 



M 
L 
M 

M 

M 

M 

L 

M 
M 
M 
M 



M 

M 
M 
M 
M 

M 

L 
M 
M 
M 

M 



M 



L 



M 



H 



L L 

M H 

M M 

M L 



L L 

M L 

M L 

L L 

L L 



M M 

L L 

L L 

L L 

L L 



M 

M 
L 

M 

M 



H 

M 
M 
M 
H 

M 



L 
M 
M 
M 
M 



M L 

M L 

L L 

L M 



MML U U U M 

MML U M U M 

MML L M U M 

MML M M U M 

M U L U U U M 

MML U H U M 

MML M M U M 

M M M L M U M 

H M L U M H M 

M M M M H U M 

U M L M M U M 

MML M M U M 

M M M L M U M 



M 



M 



M 
L 
M 

M 



M M 

L L 
M L 



M 



H 



L MUM 

L L U L 

M H U M 

M M U M 



i 



Sierra Nevada 
Mixed Conifer 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


L 


L 


M 


M 


M 


L 


M 


M 


U 


M 


Western Larch 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


L 


M 


M 


u 


M 


Western Redcedar/ 
Western Hemlock 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


H 


H 


H 


L 


M 


L 


M 


M 


L 


M 


M 


M 


U 


M 


u 


M 


Western White Pine 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


L 


U 


M 


u 


M 


Wheatgrass 
Bunchgrass 


H 


M 


M 


H 


II 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


L 


L 


H 


H 


M 


L 


M 


H 


H 


M 


Whitebark Pine 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


M 


L 


L 


M 


M 


L 


L 


L 


M 


L 


L 


M 


L 


L 


L 


L 


u 


M 


Whitebark Pine/ 
Subalpine Larch 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


M 


M 


L 


L 


L 


M 


L 


L 


M 


L 


L 


L 


L 


u 


L 



1 Species codes for exotic plants: Brte = cheatgrass; Canu = musk thistle; Caspp = whitetop; Cedi = diffuse knapweed; Cema = spotted knapweed; 
Cere = Russian knapweed; Ceso = yellow starthistle; Cevi = squarrose knapweed; Chju = rush skeletonweed; Chle = oxeye daisy; Ciar = Canada 
thistle; Civu = bull thistle; Crvu = common crupina; Eues = leafy spurge; Hagl = halogeton; Hiau = orange hawkweed; Hipr = yellow hawkweed; 
Isti = Dyers woad; Lida = dalmatian toadflax; Livu = yellow toadflax; Lysa = purple loosestrife; Onac = Scotch thistle; Pore = sulfur cinquefoil; 
Saae = Mediterranean sage; Taas = medusahead. 

2 Ratings representing susceptibility to invasion, and definitions: 

(1) H = High susceptibility to invasion — Exotic plant species is an "invader" and invades the cover type successfully and becomes dominant or 
codominant even in the absence of intense or frequent disturbance; 

(2) M = Moderate susceptibility to invasion — Exotic plant species is a "colonizer" and invades the cover type successfully because high intensity 
or frequency of disturbance impacts the soil surface or removes the normal canopy cover; 

(3) L = Low susceptibility to invasion — Exotic plant species typically does not establish because the cover type does not provide suitable habi- 
tat; and 

(4) U = Unknown susceptibility to invasion — Herbarium mount labels did not report the species at the collection site that existed in associa- 
tion with the mounted exotic plants, or ecological requirements of the exotic plant are not available in the literature, or there was a lack of 
distribution records (for example, herbaria mounts) for the exotic plant, or the extent of the cover type in the Project Area might be so minor as 
to prevent or restrict the probability of obtaining distribution records for the exotic plant within that cover type. 



■ ■ ■ .. ■ ■ ■ 



■ ■■:■:■" :■"■:■:■: :-.::y: y :y::: y : ::; : : ; : : : y x .:■: : : x ;■: ;■: ■:■:■:■:■:■: ■:■: -^iwmyyyiXiii 

assasssas sis::;:;:: a xg:?n-::"~""~~~~ 



Table B. Description of broad-scale cover types in the project area 
used in Table A to characterize the susceptibility of vegetation types 
to invasion by weed species. 



Cover Type 



Description 



Alpine Tundra 

Aspen 

Barren 

Big Sagebrush 



Bitterbrush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass 

Chokecherry/Serviceberry/Rose 
Cottonwood /Willow 

Cropland/Hay /Pasture 

Engelmann Spruce/Subalpine Fir 
Exotic Forbs/Annual Grass 
sae/ 

Fescue-Bunchgrass 

idahoensis) 

Grand Fir /White Fir 
Herbaceous Wetlands 



Phyllodoce spp. (low shrubs) 

Populus tremuloides 

Rock/Barrenlands 

Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata tridentata/ Elymus cinereus 

Artemisia tripartita/ Agropyron cristatum 

Artemisia tripartita/Exotic Herbs 

Artemisia tridentata tridentata/ Agropyron spp. 

Artemisia tridentata tridentata/ Bromus tectorum 

Artemisia spp. /Bromus tectorum 

Artemisia tripartita 

Purshia tridentata/ Bromus tectorum 
Purshia tridentata/ Agropyron spicatum 

Prunus virginiana/ Amelanchier alnifolia/ Rosa spp. 

Populus trichocarpa/Salix spp. 
Populus spp./ Comus spp. 
Populus spp. / Poa pratensis 

Dryland Crop 

Dryland Pasture/Hayland 

Irrigated Crop 

Irrigated Pasture/Hayland 

Picea engelmannii/ Abies lasiocarpa 

Exotic Forbs 

Exotic Grass [Bromus tectorum/ 'Taeniatherum caput-medu- 

Poa secunda) 
Exotic Herbaceous 
Exotic Herbs 
Exotic Perennial Grass 

Festuca idahoensis / Agropyron spp. 

Low Productivity Perennial Grass 

Perennial Native Bunchgrass 

Perennial Native Herbaceous 

Seeded Native Grass (Agropyron spicatum/ Festuca 

Seeded Native Grass [Poa secunda/ Agropyron spicatum) 
Small Perennial Grass 

Abies grandis / Abies concolor 

Carex nebraskensis 

Carex rostrata/ Carex aquatilis 

Grass /Carex spp. 

Elymus spp. 



Interior Douglas-fir 



Interior Ponderosa Pine 



Juniper/Sagebrush 
Forb 



Juniper Woodlands 



Limber Pine 
Lodgepole Pine 
Low Sagebrush 

Mixed-Conifer Woodlands 

Mountain Big Sagebrush 

Mountain Hemlock 
Mountain Mahogany 
Native Forb 



Oregon White Oak 

Pacific Ponderosa Pine 

Pacific Silver Fir/Mountain Hemlock 

Red Fir 

Salt Desert Shrub 

Shrub or Herb /Tree Regen 



Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca 

Pseudotsuga menziesii/ Abies grandis/ Exotic Herbs 

Pseudotsuga menziesii/ Abies grandis/ Populus spp. /Shrub 

Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum 
Pinus spp. /Populus spp. /Exotic Herbs 
Pinus spp. /Populus spp. /Shrub 

Juniperus spp. /Artemisia arbuscula/ Festuca idahoensis/ 

Juniperus spp./ Artemisia spp. /Agropyron spp. 

Juniperus spp. /Exotic Herbs 

Juniperus spp. /Artemisia arbuscula/ Shortgrass 

Juniperus spp. Forest/Exotic Herbs 

Juniperus spp. Woodlands 

Juniperus spp. /Native Bunchgrass 

Juniperus spp. /Poa secunda 

Pinus Jlexilis 

Pinus contorta 

Artemisia arbuscula/ Native Forbs 
Artemisia arbuscula/ Bromus tectorum 
Artemisia arbuscula/ 'Native Bunchgrass 
Artemisia spp. /Poa secunda 

Conifer/Exotic Herbs 

Conifer Encroachment/Exotic Grass 

Conifer Encroachment/Artemisia spp. /Perennial Grass 

Conifer/Perennial Grass 

Artemisia tridentata uctseyana/Perennial Grass 
Artemisia tridentata vasey ana/ Exotic Herbs 
Artemisia tridentata uoseyana/Perennial Herbs 

Tsuga mertensiana 

Cercocarpus spp. 

Deschampsia spp. / Calamagrostis spp. 
Exotic Moist Herbs 
Exotic Riparian Herbs 
Native Forbs 
Pioneer Forbs 

Quercus alba/Exotic Herbs 
Quercus alba/Shrub 

Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa 

Abies amabilis/ Tsuga mertensiana 

Abies magnifica var. shastensis 

Sarcobatus vermiculatus 

Sarcobatus vermiculatus / Distichlis stricta 

Salt Desert Shrub 1 

General Shrub 
Grass /Forb 

Mid Shrub West Cascades 
Mountain Shrub - No other 
Mountain Shrub / Ceanothus spp. 
Shrub/Regen 

■ ■ ■' ■' '■'■-Ss;s:i;^^ 



Table B. Description of broad-scale cover types in the project area 
used in Table A to characterize the susceptibility of vegetation types 
to invasion by weed species (cont). 



Shrub Wetlands 



Cover Type 



Cornus spp./ Crataegus spp. 

Gravel Bar 

Salix spp. low/ Carex spp. 

Description 



Sierra Nevada Mixed-Conifer 

Urban 

Water 

Western Larch 

Western Redcedar/Western Hemlock 

Western White Pine 

Wheatgrass Bunchgrass 



Whitebark Pine/Subalpine Larch 



Whitebark Pine 



Salix spp. low/Grass 

Salix spp. / Calamagrostis spp. 

Salix spp. /Carex spp. /Castor canadens is 

Salix spp. /Poapratens is 

Sarcobatus vermiculatus 

Sierra Nevada Mixed-Conifer 

Urban Land 

Water 

Larix occidentalis 

Thuja plicata /Tsuga heterophylla 

Pinus monticola 

Agropyron cristatum 

Agropyron cristatum/ Bromus tectorum 

Agropyron spicatum 

Agropyron spp. /Poa secunda 

Aristida longiseta 

Bromus tectorum 

Elymus cinereus 

Elymus cinereus/ Agropyron 

Elymus cinereus/ Bromus tectorum 

Exotic Annual Grass 

Fire Maintained Grass {Poa secunda/ Agropyron spicatum) 

Native Perennial Grass 

Perennial Herbs 

Poa secunda/ Festuca octojlora 

Poa pratensis 

Poa secunda 

Poa secunda/Perennial Forbs 

Seeded Exotic Agropyron spp. 

Sitanion hystrix 

Pinus albicaulis / Larix lyallii 

Pinus albicaulis/ Ixirix lyallii/ Abies lasiocarpa 

Pinus albicaulis 



1 Four representative plants in the Salt Desert Shrub type found within the Project Area are Eurotia lanata 
(winterfat), Atriplex confertifolia (shadscale). Elymus cinereus (Great Basin wildrye), and Grayia spinosa (spiny 
hopsage). 



: :■: : : :' : : ^.mm^< : ^ 
...... ........ 

' '' '■ ■' 






Appendix 2-3 




Contents 

Introduction 196 

Known Deposits 196 

Energy Resources J 98 

Mineral Development Interest Areas 200 

Undiscovered Mineral Resources 200 

Cost Models and Projected Development 202 

Environmental Considerations 202 



Introduction 



A mineral resource is a naturally occurring solid, liquid, or gaseous material in or on the earth's 
crust in such form and amount that economic extraction of a commodity from the concentration is 
currently or potentially feasible. Identified resources are those resources whose location, grade, 
quality, and quantity are known or estimated from specific geologic evidence. Undiscovered 
resources are those resources the existence of which is only postulated, comprising deposits that 
are separate from identified resources. More than 20,000 sites within the Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project area have seen mining activity. These locations show where 
commodities of economic interest have been found in the past and therefore outline the parts of 
the project area where mining activity should be expected in the future. A more specific analysis 
showing where significant deposits are known or resources are suspected will outline where 
development activity is most likely in the next 10 to 20 years. 



Known Deposits 

Metals and Industrial Minerals 



A total of 1,065 metallic and nonmetallic mineral deposits within the project area are considered 
significant in terms of potential for future production. These include the 197 sites where mining 
activity was concentrated in 1994 as well as (1) those which are relatively large past producers and 
which contain additional resources or high potential for resources; (2) those which contain 
significant amounts of metallic or nonmetallic minerals but require more favorable economic 
conditions before they will be developed; and (3) those where drilling results are positive, 
suggesting the presence of a potentially minable deposit. Parameters considered in this 
designation include the deposit's type, geometry, tonnage, grade, milling or processing 
requirements, proximity to major population centers, proximity to transportation systems, market 
trends, and commodity price history. 

The significant deposits, hosting a total of 19 metallic commodities and 22 industrial mineral 
commodities as well as rock products and energy minerals (Table 2), are summarized by state in 
Table 1 . The deposits range in size from large to small; resources have been quantified at more 
than half. Although certainly significant in value of production, sand and gravel deposits are 
intrinsically local in importance and are not included here. 



Table 1. Summary of Identified, Significant Mineral Deposits in 
the Project Area 



State 



Metallic 
Deposits 



Industrial 
Minerals 



Energy 
Minerals 



Rock 
Products 



Total 
Deposits 



Idaho 

Montana 

Nevada 

Oregon 

Utah 

Washington 

Wyoming 



143 

174 

26 

192 

3 

159 

None 



100 

34 
1 

72 
None 

56 
4 



1 
None 
None 

4 

None 

23 

1 



13 
3 

None 
32 

16 

6 

None 



257 
211 

27 
300 

19 

244 

5 



To L .;iis 



697 



?m 



29 



70 



1063 



Table 2. Identified, 


Significant Mineral Deposits 


in the 


Project Area. 




ID 


MT 


NV 


cm 


UT 


WA 


WY 


Total 


Metallic Commodities 


















Antimony 


1 


2 


1 


2 





2 





8 


Beryllium 






















1 


Chromium 











2 











2 


Cobalt 


4 














1 





5 


Copper 


17 


26 


2 


5 


1 


27 





78 


Gold 


45 


96 


20 


156 





61 





378 


Iron 


4 


] 











7 





12 


Lead 


9 


9 


1 








12 





31 


Magnesium 

















6 





6 


Manganese 





2 





1 











3 


Mercury 











16 





1 





17 


Molybdenum 


8 


8 





1 





5 





22 


Niobium 


1 


1 

















2 


RE 


2 




















2 


Silver 


28 


25 


1 


5 


1 


16 





76 


Thorium 


12 




















12 


Titanium 


2 




















2 


Tungsten 


5 


1 


2 


4 


1 


5 





18 


Zinc 


5 


3 











16 





24 


Totals 


144 


174 


27 


192 


3 


159 





699 


Rock Products 


















Pumice 


5 








29 





3 





37 


Stone 


8 


3 





3 


16 


3 





33 


Totals 


13 


3 





32 


IS 


6 





70 


Energy Minerals 


















Coal 


1 








1 





20 





22 


Uranium 











3 





3 


1 


7 


Totals 


1 








4 





23 


1 


29 


Industrial Minerals 


















Aluminum 


8 














1 





9 


Barite 


3 


9 


1 








2 





15 


Calcium 

















20 





20 


Cinders 











1 











1 


Clay 


8 








12 





1 





21 


Diatomite 


6 








22 





23 





51 


Feldspar 

















1 





1 


Fluorite 


4 


3 

















7 


Garnet 


2 




















2 


Gemstone 


4 




















4 


Gypsum 


3 




















3 


Limestone 


25 


2 





10 











37 


Peat 





2 











1 





3 


Perlite 


1 








13 











14 


Phosphate 


20 


14 














4 


38 


Quartz Crystal 





1 





1 











2 


Sapphire 





1 

















1 


Silica 


iJ 


1 











4 





^6 


Sodium 











2 





2 





4 


Talc 

















1 





1 


Vermiculite 





1 

















1 


Zeolite 


5 








11 


(.) 








16 


Totals 


100 


34 


1 


72 





56 


4 


267 
































"^jf^fg 




WMMjMSKM 



Energy Resources 

Geothermal Resources 

Geothermal sites in the project area with temperatures greater than 50 °C and with significant 
resources are shown on Table 3. Developability rankings were assigned for important geothermal 
resources by Bloomquist et al. (1985). Ninety-six high temperature sites in four northwest states 
were ranked to indicate their likelihood for development. These subjective rankings consider 
factors such as heat content, completeness of data, land status and access, engineering criteria, 
population centers, and labor force. Developability rankings in Table 3 are generally grouped as 
good (1-19), average (20-79), or poor (80-96). Direct heat sources are not shown. 



Table 3. Geothermal Resources with Potential for Development. 



Area Name 



Develop- Est 
ability Tei 
Ranking 1 



. Reservoir 








Mean Reservoir 




mperature 


Est. 


Reservoir 


Thermal Energy 


Electrical Energy 


(°C) 


Volume (km 3 ) 


(10 15 BTU) 


(Mwe for 30 years) 


Hot water con 


veclion 


systems >150°C 




151-200 




39.0 




16.4 


340 


140-179 




3.3 




1.35 


27 


230 




NA 




NA 


1,715 


230 




NA 




NA 


102.873 


144-184 




3.3 




1.35 


27 


148-231 




5.0 




2.2 


49 


180-280 




47.0 




27.0 


740 


152-161 




117.0 




45.0 


870 


173-210 




3.3 




1.6 


36 


140-180 




3.3 




1.3 


2,1 


165-231 




8.3 




4.0 


91 


144-185 




7.2 




3.0 


61 


180-227 




12.8 




6.5 


160 


185 




NA 




NA 


36.245 



Idaho 

Crane Creek/Cave Creek 13 

Big Creek Hot Springs 1 5 

Blackfoot Lava Field 21 

Rexburg Caldera 22 

Nevada 

Hot Sulphur Springs NR 

Oregon 

Alvord Hot Springs 9 

Newberry Volcano 14 

Vale Hot Springs 16 

Neal Hot Springs 28 

Trout Creek Area 31 

Borax Lake 34 

Crumps Hot Springs 37 

Mickey Hot Springs 40 

Crater Lake Area 44 



Washington 

ML Adams Area 



Idaho 

Raft River 
Newdale 

(Island Park Area) 
Bruneau and 
Castle Creek Areas 



33 NA NA NA 

Hot-water convection systems 90-150°C 

2 135-164 21 7.4 

91 84-122 89 20 

NR 90-12 1,830 450 



NA 

0.44 
1.22 
27 



Montana 

Maryville 

Oregon 

Lakeview Area and 
Barry Ranch 
Klamath Falls Area 
Klamath Hills Area 
ML Hood Area 
Summer Lake Hot Spring 



25 


103-145 


5, 6, 17 


143-158 


6 


99-131 


11 


104-138 


104 


90-150 


NR 


107-134 



'See text 



NR=not ranked 



15 



15.3 
114.0 
10.6 
3.3 
7.8 



4.3 



5.6 
30.0 
3.1 
0.96 
2.2 



NA=Not applicable 



km=Kilometers 



0.26 



0.33 
1.79 
0.19 
0.06 
0.13 



■; ;; :.::::: : ^:. : 



^jg!^ggg^;S®gp!P 



S3S2 



In May 1995, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation announced an agreement to build the first 
geothermal-electric power generating station in the project area. Anadarko plans to bring on line 
in December 1998 a 22.9-megawatt (net) air-cooled, binary geothermal plant in southern Harney 
County, Oregon. Portland General Electric has agreed to buy and transmit the power to its 
640,000 customers in the region. The plant, on the Borax Lake geothermal system near Fields, 
Oregon, will employ at least 50 people during construction and 20 people during operation. 
Estimated total revenues will be $13 million annually. The Borax Lake geothermal system lies 
1000 feet deep and underlies 2.5 square miles of earth where the highest temperatures of 152 °C 
water originates. 

Oil and Gas 

Potential for discovering oil or gas deposits is excellent in the Moxa Arch Extension, Crawford- 
Meade thrust, Northern Wyoming Range, and Absaroka thrust plays. Estimated resources are 
shown on Table 4. Discovery potential is low and little activity is expected in the Columbia 
Plateau, Eldorado-Lewis, Disturbed Belt, and Snake River Plain. Exploration activity is limited by 
difficult topography and restricted access to public lands in the Eldorado-Lewis thrust. Moxa Arch 
Extension, and Northern Wyoming Range areas. In the Absaroka thrust play, seismic coverage is 
less than 10% in the poorly explored northern half of the play area, and it is here that future 
discoveries are most likely. 



Table 4. Estimated Petroleum and Natural Gas Resources in the 
Interior Columbia Basin. 









Estimated resources (mean 


fractile) 








Oil 


Gas 


Number 


Value 2 


Location and Play 


Type 


Area (mi 1 ) 


(MMbbl 1 ) 


(BCF 1 ) 


of fields 


($millions) 


Idaho 














Snake River Plain 3 


Natural gas 


75,000 


-- 


10 


5 


80 


Crawford-Mead Thrust 3 


Natural gas 


3,600 


— 


20 


7 


224 


Wyoming 














Moxa Arch Extension 3 


Natural gas 
Carbon dioxide 


1,000 


-- 


600 4 
1,400 


1 


1,260 
960 


N. Wyoming Range 3 


Natural gas/Oil 


5,200 


10 


60 


30 


8,655 


Absaroka Thrust 3 


Natural gas/Oil 


4,200 


11 


75 


13 


4,101 


Washington-Oregon 














Columbia Basin 5 


Natural gas 


7,500 


-- 


1,000 


1 


1,600 


Montana 














Eldorado-Lewis 6 ' 7 


Natural gas 


5,200 


-- 


50 


5 


400 


Disturbed Belt 67 


Natural gas 


2,600 


— 


100 


9 


1,440 



'MMbbl= million barrels; Bcf= billion cubic feet 

^alue at $1.60/1,000 cu ft for natural gas and $19.25 for oil (Oil and Gas Journal, 1995) 

3 Peterson, 1993; Powers, 1993 

'Resource is 70% C0 2 and 30% natural gas; C0 2 value is about half that of natural gas 

Tennyson, 1993 

6 Perry, 1993 

'Perry and others, 1983 



Coal 

No coal of any grade is expected to be mined from the project area, either from the surface or 
underground, in the foreseeable future. Deposits in the project area cannot compete with coal 
marketers outside the region, particularly those in Wyoming. Wyoming is the leading coal- 
producing state and currently exports coal to every other state in the project area (Energy 
Information Administration, 1992). 

Bituminous coal of metallurgical grade in the western Roslyn field of Washington may have the 
greatest development potential. However, potential does exist for discovering economic quantities 
of methane from coal seams. Thick coal beds that are bituminous in rank are targets for coalbed 
methane exploration. Developing coal seams for coalbed methane production is simpler than 
mining because only boreholes and surface pipelines are needed to extract the resource. An 
accurate assessment of methane potential from coal fields in the project area is not available. The 
decade-old coalbed methane industry in the U.S. began because of recent technological 
developments but its growth has been modest due to competing low natural gas prices. The 
McDougal and Jackson Hole fields in Wyoming and Roslyn field in Washington offer some potential 
for developing methane from coal beds. 

Mineral Development Interest Areas 

Areas where development of mineral resources should be anticipated were composited from U.S. 
Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey favorable tracts data and rated for the likelihood that 
mining activity will occur (Map 1). Polygons were grouped for the 25 metallic deposit types 
expected in the project area; those rated high are areas where proposals for minerals exploration 
and development should be expected in the short term. In polygons rated moderate/high or 
moderate, minerals activity should be expected in the mid- to long-term time frame. The ratings 
are a function of (1) the number of active mining claims, (2) the number of producing metallic 
mines, (3) the number of past-producing metallic mines, (4) the number of significant mineral 
sites, and (5) the area of the polygon. Changes in commodity prices; market demand; mining, 
milling, or processing technologies; management practices; federal, state, and local laws and 
policies; and other variables will influence likelihood of mining activity. 

For industrial minerals, continued mining activity should be anticipated in currently or recently 
active locations and in enclosing areas with similar geologic settings. For low unit-value 
construction materials (stone, sand, and gravel), demand will follow population trends and 
infrastructure improvements. Trade-offs between environmental and economic considerations will 
determine source locations for these commodities. 

Undiscovered Mineral Resources 

The economic effects stemming from development of as yet undiscovered mineral resources within 
the project area are potentially substantial. Engineering cost modeling was used to estimate these 
effects based on assessments of undiscovered resources by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 
Undiscovered mineral resources include both new deposits and known occurrences for which no 
reliable information about location, quantity, and quality is available. The USGS assessed 
potential for undiscovered mineral resources in the "Northwest U.S.A.", an area that includes the 
project area. This geologic assessment was used to estimate potential economic effects from 
development of those deposits. Estimates are based on the quantity and economic importance of 
minerals that could be produced under specified economic, technological, and land access 
conditions. This approach is probabilistic, reflecting the inherent uncertainty associated with 









J HI 
H 



f- 



Likelihood 



V. 



> 0.6 

0.4 -0.59 
0.2 - 0.39 
< 0.19 









( 



r 



xf * 




.<< 




V 



s 

I 



r' 






^% 



\ 



: 



.■;■;.: 



\r- 



S 



v 



<r 



/ SM 



r 



/•''v 



v_ 



\~, 



rAS x^ 



>J Wj 



y\r 



y. 



Map 1 . Areas favorable for mineral deposits where development activity is likely. 



undiscovered mineral resources; its components and methodology are detailed in U.S. Bureau of 
Mines (1989). 

Potential Supply Analysis was used to analyze the 25 metallic deposit types identified by USGS as 
likely to occur in the region. The USGS provided quantitative models describing the tonnages and 
grades for these deposit types and estimates of the number of deposits as yet undiscovered. U.S. 
Bureau of Mines estimated the portion of those undiscovered resources that are economically 
recoverable and the regional economic impacts their development would have. No attempt was 
made to quantify undiscovered resources of industrial minerals. These estimates are made for five 
different probability levels, 90%, 50%, 10%, 5%, and 1% exceedance. (That is. in the estimators 
judgment there is a 90% chance that the number of deposits will exceed that number, etc.) It 
should be noted that the existence of deposits does not imply that there is sufficient grade or 
tonnage to justify mining and milling at current or future commodity prices and mining and 
milling technologies. 

Cost Models and Projected Development 

Mine and mill cost models were developed, based on similar operations in similar environments, to 
estimate the capital and operating costs and percent of metals recovered for the different types of 
mines and mills which would be used to produce from these deposits. 

While there are significant undiscovered mineral resources of many different deposit types, 
exploration is expected to concentrate on the top priority exploration targets. At current prices, the 
average number of economic deposits remaining in each of these terranes is: about one Alkaline 
Gold-Telluride, four Epithermal Vein-Comstock type, zero to one Epithermal Vein-Quartz Adularia 
type, one Hot Spring Gold-Silver, one Sedimentary Exhalative Zinc-Lead, one to two Gold Skarn, 
one Sediment Hosted Copper, and one Homestake Stratiform Gold. No economic deposits are 
expected of the Sediment Hosted Gold, Sediment Hosted Copper-Reduced Facies, or Massive 
Sulfide-Kuroko types. The total number of expected deposits, on average, is about twelve. If 
developed simultaneously these mines could be expected to generate more than 1 1.000 jobs, $770 
million regional output, and $326 million income annually. These mines would ultimately produce 
27 million troy ounces of gold, 698 million troy ounces of silver, 4 million tons of copper, 6.7 
million tons of zinc, and 3.8 million tons of lead. If metal prices effectively doubled, about 33 
deposits would be developed with comparable increases in jobs and outputs. 

Environmental Considerations 

Regulatory Setting 

Although numerous laws and amendments are applicable to minerals management, four are of 
particular importance: the Mining Law (1872), the Mineral Leasing Act (1920), the Mineral 
Materials Act (1947), and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 1993). The Mining Law designates most minerals "locatable," providing for staking and 
patenting of mining claims. The total acreage, transferred through the patenting process as of 
1992, was approximately 3.24 million acres, or 0.5% of 1% of total federal lands. The Mineral 
Leasing Act and the Leasing Act for Acquired Lands designated some minerals on public domain 
lands (notably energy and some non-metals), and all minerals on acquired lands as "leasable." 
Finally, the Mineral Materials Act designates some "common" minerals as salable: in these cases, 
the land management agency may allow exploration and development through permits and sales. 






Not all federally owned land is open to mineral exploration and development. On some designated 
lands (wildernesses, wild river areas, and other special purpose categories) mineral and other 
activities are precluded or constrained in order to preserve special characteristics. Two significant 
other concerns complicate the management of mineral resources on public lands. First, valid 
existing rights to claims on withdrawn lands require review and adjustment of access and other 
activities in mining plans. Second, some lands have split ownership of surface and subsurface 
resources which must be addressed during management. 

Public policy affects a decision to mine in a number of ways, most notably through land use and 
environmental restrictions. Particularly on public lands, policy over the last several decades has 
resulted in a reduction of the lands available for exploration and development. Other policies, 
including those listed below, have reduced options or increased the costs of mining. Finally, 
increasing demands for recreation and wilderness experiences will likely increase pressures to limit 
or prohibit future mining. 

Since 1970, mining operations have been subject to regulations and reclamation standards that 
have stemmed primarily from federal environmental legislation. The cornerstones for federal 
regulations and standards are the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) , the Clean Water Act, 
and the Clean Air Act. Regulations were developed to prevent present and future mining operations 
from posing the same environmental liability as past mining practices; the effectiveness of 
regulations to adequately protect human health and the environment is unproven. Numerous state 
and local regulations are as restrictive as federal requirements or more so. A partial listing of 
current federal environmental legislation and programs that may apply to today's mining 
operations includes: 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Clean Water Act (including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Section 404- 
Dredged and Fill Material Permit, Non-Point Source Program, and Oil and Hazardous 
Substances Spill Program) 

Clean Air Act (including General Air Quality Permit, Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Program, and Non-Attainment Program) 

Safe Drinking Water Act (including Underground Injection Program) 
Endangered Species Act 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
Toxic Substance Control Act 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 
Mine Safety and Health Act 
Occupational Safety and Health Act 
Historical and Archaeological Data Preservation Act 

Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

In addition to providing for reclamation at contaminated sites, CERCLA has been a significant 
deterrent to parties (in both the public and private sectors) , who might otherwise attempt site 
cleanups. As currently implemented, site operators performing remediation are considered 
"responsible parties" under CERCLA and therefore potentially liable for all past activity and future 
releases from the site. As a result, to date relatively few abandoned mine sites with chemical 
hazards have been reclaimed. 



Reclamation Costs 

Under existing provisions of the Clean Water Act and other laws, one of the most certain types of 
mineral economic activity will be the remediation and reclamation of abandoned mine and mineral 
processing sites. Such sites exist throughout the nation, but are concentrated in the Western 






States. As discussed above, there are almost 14,000 sites in the project area with hundreds likely 
to require remediation. The expenditures required for these activities, while uncertain, will have 
local and regional economic impacts. 

The primary uncertainties in the remediation and reclamation of abandoned and inactive mines 
are the costs and standards for cleanup, two complex and intertwined topics. The technologies for 
addressing physical hazards are relatively well-known and straightforward, but those applicable to 
chemical problems are more problematic. The central and mostly unanswered questions are: how 
"clean" is clean enough; is a technology available for achieving a particular standard; what are the 
short and long term cost implications; and who will pay for remediation or for developing the 
required technologies? 

The complexity of the rehabilitation process makes modeling of remediation costs especially 
tenuous. For sites with chemical hazards, site specific conditions present many unknowns and 
independent variables that can have dramatic effects on costs. Generalized state-level projections 
and cost estimates for completion of remedial actions at abandoned and inactive mine sites show 
the degree of uncertainty for remediation costs associated with chemical hazards: some are 
separated by orders of magnitude (Table 5) . 



Table 5. State Estimates of Mined Land Remediation Costs ] 



State 



Remediation costs 2 



Comment 



Idaho 


$315,566,900 


Montana 


$912,280,000 


Nevada 


$2,529,000 


Oregon 


$57,000,000 to $77,000,0000 


Utah 


$174,790,000 


Washington 


None available 


Wyoming 


$45,000,000 



Total remediation costs 

Total remediation costs including 
Superfund sites. 

Total remediation cost for hazardous 
mine openings; does not include 
chemical hazards 

Total remediation costs 

Total remediation costs 

Did not participate in survey 

Total remediation costs 



'Western Interstate Energy Board, 199 1 

2 General costs are estimated at $ 1 ,000,000 per mile for high impact polluted waters and $30,000 per 

acre of mine dump. 



The range of costs for specific aspects of reclamation are shown in Table 6; those for addressing 
physical hazards are fairly well known while those for addressing chemical contamination reflect 
considerable uncertainty. 



TSWK Drait EfS/ 



Table 6. Reclamation Cost Estimates 



Disturbance type 



Reclamation cost estimates 

Low($) High($) Comments 



Mine openings 
(per opening) 

Structures 
(per structure) 

Highwalls 
(per mile) 

Disturbed land 
(per acre) 

Polluted surface water 
(per mile) 

Mine dumps 
(per acre) 



400 5.350 Range of costs represent different 

techniques and economies of scale 

400 4,000 Same as above 



50,000 100,000 Based in part on coal and construction 

reclamation experience 

1,500 10,000 Most estimates are under $3000; higher 

costs are specific to uranium reclamation 

30,000 1 ,000,000 The wide range of costs suggests low 

confidence in estimates and lack of 
experience in reclamation 

2,500 30.000 Same as above 



Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines and Colorado Center for Environmental Management, 1994 



In 1988, the Government Accounting Office estimated that 424,049 acres of federal land were 
unreclaimed as a result of hard rock mining in 1 1 western states. The abandoned area covers about 
281,581 acres and the estimated cost to reclaim these acres is $284 million or $1,000 per acre. 



Appendix 3-1 

Implementation 
Framework 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix I) 










Contents 

Introduction 208 

The Nature of Decisions 208 

Implementation Process 212 

A Framework for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive 

Management 222 

Challenges to Implementation 240 

Reference List 243 



■ ■ ■ ■■■ . '■■:■:, . ■ ■ 



^^■S^Sv::::::^ 



■r 



Key Terms Used in this Appendix 



The EIS Glossary can be used to clarify most key terms used in this appendix. However, several are 
unique to, or important in this document and are included as follows: 

Adaptive Management - A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part 
of an on-going process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, evaluation, and 
incorporating new knowledge into management approaches based on scientific findings and the needs 
of society. Results are used to modify management policy. 

Regional Executives - A group ofBLM State Directors, Forest Service Regional Foresters, Forest 
Service Research Station Directors, Fish and Wildlife Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries 
Service Regional Director, and EPA Regional Director representing the agency offices within the Project 
Area that provide guidance and direction. 

Monitoring - A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project and 
its mitigation plan are being realized. 

Sub-basin - Equivalent to a 4th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), a drainage area of approximately 
800.000 to 1,000.000 acres. 

Subwatershed - Equivalent to a 6th-field HUC, a drainage area of approximately 20,000 acres. 
Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained within a watershed (5thfield HUC), which 
in turn is contained within a sub-basin (4th-field HUC). This concept is shown graphically in Figure 2-1 
in Chapter 2. 

Watershed - 1) The region draining into a river, river system, or body of water; 2) In this EIS, a 
watershed also refers to a drainage area of approximately 50,000 to 100,000 acres, which is 
equivalent to a 5th-field HUC) 



J 



Introduction 

This appendix addresses implementation issues that will be finalized in the Record(s) of Decision 
(RODs). Processes for implementation, monitoring, and adaptive management are included. This 
appendix is not intended to be a plan but rather a framework to identify and guide the development 
work between Draft and Final EIS and to add clarity to the implementation expectations. This 
appendix is a start in the process, not a completed product. In recognition of the importance and 
focus needed, a team has been established to begin working on an Implementation Plan, to guide 
application of decisions made in the ROD(s). 

This appendix is composed of four main sections: 
♦The Nature of Decisions: 

♦ Implementation Process; 

♦ Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Framework; 

♦ Challenges to Implementation. 

The Nature of Decisions 

Nature of Planning on National Forest System and 
BLM-Administered Lands 



In order to understand the decision(s) to be made based on this EIS, it is important to understand 
the Forest Service's and Bureau of Land Management's multi-stage process for land use planning. 



Under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974, the Forest 
Service Chiefs Office prepares nation-wide Renewable Resources Assessment and Program 
documents (36 CFR 219.4(b)). Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
(FLPMA), the BLM Director provides guidance for the preparation of resource management plans, 
which includes national level policy (43 CFR 1610. 1(a)). The next planning level involves 
preparation of a regional guide for each Forest Service Region to address "major issues and 
management concerns which need to be considered at the Regional level" (36 CFR 219.8(a)). 
Parallel to this, the BLM State Director provides State level guidance for resource management plan 
preparation (43 CFR 1610.1(a)). Next, individual National Forest/BLM land use plans are prepared 
which are "land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System" (16 
U.S.C. 1604(a); 36 CFR 219.10 to 219.27) and "resource management plans [which are] prepared 
and maintained on a resource area basis" (43 CFR 1610.1(b)). Finally, individual projects, such as 
timber sales, are evaluated and may be approved only if they are consistent with applicable Forest 
Service/BLM land use plans and applicable environmental standards (16 U.S.C. 1604(1) and 36 
CFR 223.30) and (43 CFR 1610.5-3). 

Plans for both National Forest System and BLM-administered lands are designed to be consistent 
with national-level agency policies and regulations. BLM plans at the project or activity level tier to 
Resource Management Plans or Management Framework Plans, which may be based on State 
Director guidance when needed. Forest Service project plans must be consistent with Forest Plans, 
which in turn are based on Regional Guides. When needed, larger scale multi-regional plans, such 
as this one, may be developed for issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. 

Nature of Decisions Expected in the ROD 

The elements of the decisions to be made through the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project (ICBEMP) are described and explained in detail in Chapter 1 of the draft 
environmental impact statements (Draft EISs). 

The decision(s) will include adoption of management goals, a desired range of future conditions 
expected over the next 50 to 100 years, objectives, and standards. An explanation of each of these 
decision elements follows: 

Management Goals are broad general statements of intent that are not quantified or time specific. 
The goals of the ICBEMP were derived from consideration of the project charter and the purpose of 
and need for the project. In adopting these goals as part of the decision, the Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management will identify the general direction to be taken by subsequent planning 
and management actions. 

The Desired Range of Future Conditions (DRFC) is a portrayal of the land, resource, or social and 
economic conditions that are expected to result in 50 to 100 years as objectives are achieved. The 
DRFC helps direct future management actions by providing a vision of these long-term conditions. 

Objectives are indicators used to measure progress toward attainment of goals. They address 
short- and long-term actions taken to meet the goals. The objectives of the ICBEMP are expected to 
move conditions toward the desired range of future conditions described in Chapter 3 and to be 
implemented within 10 years. The Draft EISs include an estimation of the level of management 
activities that would be implemented on Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands in the project 
area resulting from this direction. (See Tables 3-6 and 3-7.) The activities displayed in these 
tables are the active methods that are most often anticipated and associated with restoration of 
ecological function and processes. (A more complete explanation of how the numbers were derived 
and what is meant by the various activities can be found in Appendix 3-3 in the section entitled 
Ruleset.) These levels of activities are estimates made to facilitate the evaluation of the 
alternatives. They are not targets or allocations. 



. ./\//.//;././... .. . :: j; : ;.. ; ^;v..™,--\.: : ;.. :: v-,;s: v : :-;.s,s : >„ : ; .„.:■,.... .. :: ..'.'.'.'.'.;. ...... :: . .:. " ' ; . ; ;.; . '•■; ^ ■■ . 

Standards are required actions addressing how to achieve objectives. Standards can include 
additional processes that must be followed, or requirements to refrain from taking action in 
certain situations. 

Decision(s) made by the agencies will provide a large-scale ecological context for Forest Service and 
BLM land use plans. They will help clarify the relationship of agency activities to ecosystem 
capabilities and will help develop realistic expectations for the production of economic and social 
benefits. Most decisions will focus on regional and subregional issues. The decision(s) will 
establish desired landscape patterns, structure, and succession and disturbance regimes to move 
toward sustainable forest land, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems. Decision(s) are 
expected to describe a consistent aquatic /riparian strategy, the needs for ecosystem analysis, and 
management emphasis. Decision(s) will also establish general direction for management of habitat 
for threatened or endangered species, species of concern to tribes, or communities of species that 
require management across broad landscapes to assure viability. Decision(s) described in the 
Record(s) of Decision will focus on those that have been challenging to address at the local level. 
Most implementation decisions will be made locally within the context of those described in the 
Record(s) of Decision. 

After the Record(s) of Decision are issued, each administrative unit will need to ensure that it is 
complying with both the amendment adopted by the ROD(s) and remaining language in the 
original plan. In addition, refinement of direction applicable to individual units may be developed 
through subsequent plan amendments or revisions. 

Relationship to Existing Plans, Policies and Decisions 

Both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land use plans vary in their consistency 
with the different alternatives displayed in this EIS. Consequently, it is expected that the degree of 
change to individual plans as a result of the Record(s) of Decision will also vary from plan to plan. 
The amended plans will incorporate management goals and the desired range of future conditions 
over the next 50 to 100 years, will modify existing objectives or adopt new objectives to be used in 
measuring progress toward attainment of the management goals, and will identify standards to 
direct future management actions. In summary, this EIS will provide updated and broad regional 
direction, while individual Forest Service and BLM plans, as amended, will continue to provide 
more specific direction. 

While the ROD will amend all existing land use plans, it will not replace or supersede all of the 
decisions and direction in these plans. Where those plans already provide management direction 
and land allocations not superseded by the ROD(s] for the ICBEMP, those mid- or lower tier 
decisions will remain in effect. Examples would include protective management direction and land 
use allocations for designated components of the Wild and Scenic River System, designated 
Research Natural Areas, National Historic Sites and Districts, or off-highway-vehicle play areas. 

The Forest Service and BLM will continue to comply with existing laws and regulations and with 
longstanding agency policies such as those for management of special status species. The special 
status species policies for the BLM and Forest Service basically state that the agencies will manage 
such that special status species do not need to be listed as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act. 

Compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) 

The EIS for this project provides the compliance with NEPA for the broad-scale decisions that will be 
made in the ROD. It does not replace the requirement to comply with NEPA for implementation 

■■■■■■:■■-■-■■■■■.■..::■:■.::.■■■■..■.■■....■.......!■■■■■■■■.■;■■■■.■.■■..■■ ' " ." : ..'.........:. ■■■■■■■■■ ' " ' ;' ■ ^ ' ' V / . . . '- - ' .■■■■■.■■■. .. ... ' 



actions. The agencies will continue to prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental 
Impact Statements (EISs) as part of decision making and planning processes. These subsequent EISs 
and EAs will tier to the Upper Columbia River Basin (UCRB) or Eastside EIS. 



Management Priorities 



Management priorities are described in Chapter 1. In addition, management emphasis is described 
in Chapter 3 for each alternative. With the significant diversity of issues, resources, conditions, 
trends, and communities within the planning area, there is no simple solution to ambiguities or 
conflicts that may arise through implementation at the field level. The management priorities and 
emphasis outlined in this EIS and Record(s) of Decision will provide the context, framework, or 
umbrella for local decision making. Local managers need the flexibility to work within this 
umbrella to adapt priorities and emphasis to local conditions such that outcomes can be most 
effective. 

In Chapter 1, three priorities are stated: protect ecosystems, restore deteriorated ecosystems, and 
provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosystems. In Chapters 2 and 3, forest 
and range clusters are described. Within the clusters, priorities and opportunities are discussed. In 
addition, in Chapter 3, management emphasis is assigned by alternative and cluster to conserve, 
restore, produce, or a combination of these. These descriptions outline the framework and context to 
conduct management activities. While clusters represent areas with similar risks, opportunities, 
existing conditions, and management histories, they are not homogeneous and contain a variety of 
actual and potential conditions. While a management emphasis has been assigned for each cluster 
as a whole, the varying conditions within a cluster will require that management activities are 
selectively placed to create the optimum mix of restoration, conservation, and production. Placement 
of activities will be based upon local conditions as described during further analysis (See Linking 
Broad-scale Decisions and Information to Finer Levels in this appendix) . 

Clusters also contain parts of more than one administrative unit. Implementation will require a 
consistent approach among affected administrative units, and will be guided by four components: 
integrated risk analysis, spatial prioritization, additional analysis as described in the section 
entitled Linking Broad-scale Decisions and Information to Finer Levels in this appendix, and 
monitoring and evaluation. 

An integrated risk analysis, conducted prior to the ROD, will examine relative risks to important 
components of the terrestrial, aquatic, and landscape processes as brought forward through the 
Scientific Assessment. This process will also consider the opportunities that are consistent with 
reducing risks: restoring areas important to terrestrial, aquatic, and landscape systems but 
currently not at their potential; and the provision of goods and services consistent with 
maintaining ecological integrity. It is expected that the combination of the integrated risk analysis 
and the theme of the alternatives will be used to identify subbasins where there is the greatest 
opportunity to jointly reduce overall ecological risk, and meet other societal needs. This is referred 
to as spatial prioritization. 

Next, a process for using information from multiple scales to aid in decision making will be 
implemented as described in the section entitled Linking Broad Scale Decisions and Information to 
Finer Levels. This step-down process is designed to ensure that final commitments of actions 
prescribed to meet broad-scale goals and objectives are made only after considering local conditions. 
It will validate the risk determinations made as part of the spatial prioritization process, and 
facilitate the analysis of cumulative effects when individual project decisions are made. 

Finally, implementation will include a feedback mechanism that will compile information about 
implementation, and aggregate it upward to determine if the cumulative results of implementation 
are as desired or expected. This monitoring process will examine whether existing conditions 
match those projected, and whether progress is being made toward achieving the desired 



conditions. It will include a determination of whether the levels of activities that were projected are 
occurring, whether they are occurring in the expected locations, and how these findings relate to 
the projected effects of implementation. Monitoring may occur in conjunction with analysis done 
at any scale in the step-down process. (See A Framework for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive 
Management in this appendix). 

Concerns may arise about possible conflicts between resource needs and people's needs. These 
are ultimately addressed at the local level, within the context of overall direction and priorities 
contained in the ROD(s). As a foundation, however, the Forest Service and BLM are obligated and 
committed to meeting the intent of existing laws, regulations and policies. Various Federal and 
State laws, such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act. Federal trust 
responsibilities, and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). have minimum requirements or 
conditions (such as meeting the viability requirement of the NFMA, water temperature standards of 
the Clean Water Act. or emission standards from the Clean Air Act] that must be attained prior to 
or while conducting management activities. While these define the lower limits of the decision 
space, the upper limit is often bounded by the biological potential, or maximum capabilities of the 
land and resources. This then allows for a range of management options between the minimum 
legal requirements and the biological potential. Selection of a Preferred Alternative or action within 
that range of options can then be focused on social, economic, or special resource considerations. 
In general, after ensuring that legal requirements are satisfied, a combination of social, economic, 
and resource values will be greatest somewhere short of maximizing any one value, except where 
very limited opportunities, high risks, or rare and sensitive species or habitats exist. 

Implementation Process 

Introduction 

An implementation plan will be developed to guide application of decisions made in the ROD(s). 
The Implementation Plan will not add new objectives, standards, or guidelines, but it will describe 
an implementation process that will increase the likelihood of meeting management goals and 
objectives and of attaining the desired range of future conditions described in the selected alternative. 

Time Frames for Implementation 

Implementation of decisions made through this process will occur in two phases. First, activity 
planning and project design will begin almost immediately to reflect the management direction as 
described in the ROD. Generally, any ongoing, short-term activity that has been through the 
NEPA process would not be changed as a result of new direction. Short-term activities where 
analysis has been completed and decisions are pending will be screened to ensure there are no 
major conflicts with the new direction. Decisions affecting longer term permitted activities, such 
as livestock grazing and special-use activities, would have a transition period to come into 
compliance with new direction. The actual time frame and process to bring existing activities into 
compliance will be included in the Record of Decision. New projects will be designed to achieve the 
broad-scale objectives, and all new standards will be applied to those projects. 

The second phase of implementation will occur over the longer term, whereby plans for individual 
administrative units will be reviewed for barriers to achieving broad-scale objectives. This should 
occur through the monitoring and evaluation process, and may lead to additional changes in plans 
through a later amendment or revision process that considers information specific to each 
administrative unit. 



M^iW: 



Interagency/Intergovernmental Coordination, 
Collaboration, and Accountability 

This EIS has been prepared with close coordination and collaboration with other Federal agencies; 
State, local, and tribal governments; Resource Advisory Councils (RACs); and Provincial Advisory 
Committees (PACs). Expectations are high for these decisions to resolve many broad-scale issues 
within the project area. In order to maximize the likelihood of fulfilling these expectations, and to 
successfully restore the ecosystems of the project area, a collaborative approach toward 
implementing decisions made in the Record(s) of Decision will be developed. Currently there is no 
project-wide, systematic approach for interagency or intergovernmental coordination, collaboration, 
and accountability. Several areas have been identified where opportunities should be provided to 
meet this need. They include, but are not limited to: 

♦ Consistent interpretation and application of decisions; 

♦ Coordinating and conducting Sub-basin Review; 

♦ Prioritizing and conducting Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale; 
♦Assessing cumulative effects; 

♦ Monitoring and adaptive management; 

♦ Data management and inventory; 
♦Accountability and credibility; 

♦ Coordination and collaboration with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and tribes. 

There are many approaches that will be explored between the release of this Draft EIS and release 
of a Final EIS to address these areas. These approaches will be examined in light of their overall 
effectiveness and cost. Many efforts to coordinate and effectively communicate are currently in 
place in portions of the project area and may need to be institutionalized project-wide. For 
example, the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis, Version 2.2, describes methods for and the 
value of interagency coordination; the Guide currently is being used in parts of the project area. 
Also, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have signed a Memorandum of 
Agreement (MOA) that streamlines consultation processes under the Endangered Species Act, and 
provides an effective issue resolution mechanism. This MOA, which provides a four-level process 
to resolve interpretation and accountability issues, appears to be working well and will likely be 
continued and expanded. 

The Federal partner agencies are dedicated to ensuring that line officers from both the land 
management agencies and the regulatory agencies are held accountable for implementing the 
selected alternative (A-Ol, A-Sl, A-S2, in Table 3-5). Mechanisms for ensuring this accountability 
will be developed and reinforced prior to publishing the Final EIS. Opportunities will be provided to 
tribes, State and local governments, other Federal agencies, Resource Advisory Councils, and 
Provincial Advisory Committees to participate in this oversight (A-S3). 

An Interagency Implementation Team consisting of representatives from the Forest Service, BLM, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency 
will further develop and evaluate organizational options, process strategies, and training 
opportunities to accomplish this need and desire for interagency/intergovernmental cooperation, 
collaboration, and accountability. 



.......I.........".'.'..' '..'.'...'.'.".....7. .-'/:'.... •■ 



Consultation with Tribal Governments 

Indian tribes are asking, and the agencies agree, for the tribes to have more involvement in the 
decision process. The United States Government has an obligation to deal with Indian tribes as 
sovereign governments. Since late 1993, there have been numerous executive orders, laws, and 
statutes (See Appendix 1-2) that have directed and encouraged this interaction. Objectives TI-Ol - 
4 and associated standards (Table 3-5) direct agencies to meet Federal Government 
responsibilities, to maintain meaningful government-to-government relationships, and to consult 
with the tribes. 

Consultation is an active, affirmative process which identifies issues and seeks input from affected 
tribal governments, considers their input, resolves conflicts, and explains decisions. It is a 
necessary and integral part of the decision-making process. Consultation can build strong working 
relationships and encourage exchange of local site-specific information resulting in better decisions. 

Public Involvement and Collaboration 

Federal agencies, social scientists, and others agree that ecosystem management requires greater 
participation by the public and other governmental agencies, especially for collaborative efforts that 
foster mutual learning. Alternatives 3 through 7 reflect this with a number of objectives and 
standards designed to ensure that stakeholders play an increased role in public land planning, 
implementation and monitoring. 

These measures are directed at three main audiences: tribal governments, local and State 
governments, and other stakeholders. HU-S1 (Table 3-5) directs National Forests and BLM districts to 
initiate Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) or similar agreements with tribal, local and State 
governments to offer advice to Federal land managers in decision making. Objective HU-Ol directs 
agencies to provide opportunities for increased involvement by a broad range of stakeholders. The 
intent of these objectives is to provide opportunities beyond that required by NEPA to move beyond 
an activity-by-activity involvement of tribes, the public, and local and State governments. 

An ongoing issue in public participation is how to involve not just the local and regional public, but 
the national public. There appears to be consensus that it is most important to involve people who 
will be most directly affected by public land management. However, the Economics Chapter of the 
Assessment oj'Ecosystem Components demonstrated the tremendous national values associated 
with project area resources. Involving this constituency should be part of the process, especially in 
areas such as regional priority .setting. 

It will be important for tribal governments, other agencies, the public, and local and State 
governments to have the opportunity to participate in technology transfer efforts. If these 
participants are expected to have an increased role in planning, implementation, and monitoring, 
they, as well as agency employees, will need a better understanding of conditions, trends, issues 
and interactions, rather than just information about the result of analysis. 

Collaborative approaches to implementation will be neccssaiy to assure success. Close working 
relationships between management and regulatory agencies will need to be developed and 
maintained. Others outside the Forest Service and BLM should be involved in monitoring, 
evaluation, and adaptive management. The BLM and Forest Service retain the responsibility and 
authority for land management decisions. However, these decisions will be more meaningful, 
effective, and long lasting if done in an open process through collaborative means. 



ZMWMXxmm*- 



Linking Broad-scale Decisions and Information to 
Finer Levels 

In this Draft EIS, certain requirements are described that provide a hierarchy of analysis to 
support land management decisions. The following section provides an outline of the expected 
types and levels of analysis that will "step-down" broad-scale information and decisions to site- 
specific actions. This step-down process is designed to ensure that broad-scale decisions are 
viewed within the context of local conditions, and that local decisions are made within the context 
of broad-scale goals and objectives. 

While this Draft EIS contains regional direction and context for addressing broad- scale issues and 
resource conditions, most management actions will require further analysis and additional 
decisions prior to being implemented. This additional analysis is necessary to: 

♦Validate, refine, or add to information concerning current and historical resource conditions, 
processes, and interactions; 

♦Address issues not appropriately addressed at the broad scale; 

♦ Prioritize restoration efforts to maximize the likelihood of meeting management goals and 
objectives, and to minimize negative impacts; 

♦ Provide subregional and local input. 

Analysis of ecosystems is a systematic way of gathering, organizing, and understanding ecosystem 
information. It is not, in itself, a decision-making process. Rather, it provides the information 
necessary to make wise, well-informed decisions as required by the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) . With this information, managers can better understand and disclose the effects of their 
decisions. It also helps guide the type, location, and sequence of appropriate management activities 
within a watershed. In addition, this analysis can help identify monitoring and research needs. 

Additional analysis is directed by the action alternatives (Alternatives 3 through 7) in this Draft EIS 
primarily to provide the context necessary for applying broad-scale decisions to site-specific 
situations. It is a particularly valuable instrument for providing the type and level of information 
necessary for amending and revising land use plans and scheduling site-specific management activities. 

While it is the goal of the Forest Service and BLM to conduct this analysis throughout the project 
area, it is required to different degrees, by alternative, before certain activities can proceed. 



Hierarchy of Analysis 



Three additional levels of analysis or review, below the project-wide analysis, conducted as part of 
the ICBEMP are intended to provide the context necessary to appropriately implement these broad- 
level decisions on individual National Forests and BLM Resource Areas or Districts. They include 
Sub-basin Review, Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, and site-specific analysis. This 
hierarchy of analysis or review is intended to meet the objectives mentioned above; however, 
additional scales may be more appropriate for certain subregional issues. Generally, watershed 
scale analyses will be aggregated to address issues that transcend individual 5th- and 6th-field 
HUC watersheds. 



Examples of information that should be considered during Sub-basin Review and Ecosystem 
Analysis at the Watershed Scale are: 

A. Socioeconomic - 
♦Economic resiliency; 
♦Transportation corridors, infrastructure; 
♦Recreation opportunities: 
♦Economic opportunities; 

♦Urban interface; 
♦Quality of life; 
♦Custom and culture; 

B. Tribal - 

♦Indian religious sites; 
♦Cultural and spiritual values; 
♦Reserved rights on ceded lands; 

♦Traditional use areas, hunting, fishing, grazing, and gathering areas and opportunities to 
improve these sites; 

C. Biophysical - 

♦Distribution and status of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, species 

of concern, sensitive species, or remnant populations of species; 
♦Number of different native vertebrate species present or thought to be present in a given area 

(native species richness); 
♦Designated or proposed critical habitat or habitat necessary for species recovery; 
♦Populations with unique genetic traits or populations near the edge of the range of a more 

widely distributed species: 
♦Habitat for rare or endemic species; 

♦Distribution and status of exotic vertebrate and vascular plant species; 
♦Watershed, aquatic, and terrestrial connectivity and potential for reestablish ment of 

connectivity in fragmented watersheds; 
♦High quality waters which include, but are not limited to: 

- waters whose quality is necessary to support threatened, endangered, candidate, and 
sensitive species restoration, conservation, or recovery; 

- waters/watersheds used as sources of public drinking water; 

- waters/watersheds where groundwater recharge to Sole Source Aquifers designated under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act occurs; 

- waters whose quality is necessary to support any beneficial use; 
♦Degraded waters which include, but are not limited to: 

- waters that do not meet one or more State, EPA, or tribal water quality standards; 

- waters whose quality does not support a beneficial use: 

- waters officially designated as Water Quality Limited under Clean Water Act(CWA) 
Section 303(d); 

- waters currently meeting water quality standards but which require above-normal 
measures of practices to maintain; 

♦Watershed, aquatic and terrestrial habitat condition; 

♦Vegetation composition, distribution, health, and patch and pattern (includes, but not 

limited to insect and disease problems and fuel loading); 
♦Verification of aquatic and terrestrial strongholds and sub-basin category designations; 
♦Downed woody debris and snags; 

♦Biophysical and watershed sensitivity to natural and management disturbances; 
♦Completeness of watershed, aquatic, and terrestrial information; 
♦High quality, restorable, and previously restored terrestrial and aquatic habitats and waters 

including those important to the conservation of sensitive, candidate, proposed, and listed 

species. Indicators may include: 

- road density; 

- hydrologic integrity; 

- rangeland and forest land integrity. 



Sub-basin Review 

The first step toward understanding how the Scientific Assessment relates to more localized 
conditions is Sub-basin Review (800,000- to 1,000,000-acre watershed), which is directed in 
EM-03 and EM-SI for all of the action alternatives. This process is based upon existing 
information and is intended to be a brief validation: it is designed to: 

♦ Review information provided in the ICBEMP Scientific Assessment and from the spatial 
prioritization process and validate with existing local information; 

♦ Prioritize opportunities for Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale within the subbasins; 

♦ Identify potential project level opportunities for implementing ecosystem management that can 
be determined at this scale; 

♦ Identify data gaps; 

♦ Identify opportunities for pooling interagency (Federal agencies), tribal, and intergovernmental 
(States, counties, cities) resources for completing analyses and project-level work. 

Sub-basin Review will generally occur on each 4th-field HUC across the project area. Exceptions 
include those watersheds where Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands make up only a 
small fraction of the total land area, or where lumping subbasins is logical. Sub-basin Review will 
be conducted by an interagency, interdisciplinary team. 

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale 

The second analysis scale below the broad-scale is watershed scale analysis (5th- or 6th-field HUC; 
10,000- to 100,000-acre watersheds), which is directed in EM-04 and EM-S5 through EM-S10 for 
all the action alternatives. This analysis will normally employ watershed and subwatershed 
boundaries, however, using other boundaries that are meaningful and efficient is appropriate as 
long as the logic and processes for Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale are followed, and 
the product provides context and information for decisions. This scale of analysis is intended to: 

♦ Establish a consistent watershed-wide context for water quality conditions and protection of 
beneficial uses; 

♦ Provide the hydrologic characterization and identification of pollutant sources; 

♦ Understand actual conditions at a resolution necessary to make judgement about watershed- 
scale effects of actions on resources; 

♦ Evaluate potential actions in the context of an overall understanding of the capabilities, 
limitations, and risks of a specific watershed; 

♦ Identify watershed level issues and concerns; 

♦ Identify synergies that can be gained through sequencing activities; 

♦ Refine management standards to fit local conditions and values at risk; 

♦ Identify monitoring needs for watershed-wide effects. 

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale will provide the opportunity for interagency and 
intergovernmental involvement and will follow the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis, Version 
2.2, or subsequent replacements. It will be conducted by teams of journey-level specialists who 
follow a standard six-step process. It is an incremental process, whereby information from 
inventories, monitoring reports, or additional analyses can be added at any time. 

In many cases, activities that require an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact 
Statement will also require Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. To address any ambiguity 
between projects needing ecosystem analysis and those needing only site-specific analysis, an 
interagency team will develop a screening process that will help identify which activities that 



require an EA or an EIS are exempt from the requirement to conduct Ecosystem Analysis at the 
Watershed Scale. This process will guide decisions concerning which projects are appropriate to 
proceed without watershed scale analysis in certain areas. 

Information derived through Sub-basin Review and Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale 
would be aggregated up to assist in making programmatic decisions, such as land use plan 
amendments and revisions, and would be incorporated into project decisions at lower levels (EM-S4). 

Site-specijic Analysis 

The third scale of analysis below the broad-scale is the site-specific, or activity- level analysis. This 
analysis will typically result in a NEPA process, including public scoping, and a site- specific 
decision document. While it may be feasible to analyze the effects of groups of activities at the 
watershed scale, a large majority of the activities proposed will be analyzed at the site-specific 
scale. Under the hierarchy of analysis outlined above, this scale of analysis acts as a safety net for 
those issues overlooked or appropriately excluded at larger scales, and provides site-specific 
information for determining effects. This level of analysis has been used extensively since the 
inception of NEPA in 1969, and in accordance with Forest Service NEPA Handbook 1909.15 and 
BLM NEPA Handbook H- 1790-1. It has been proven successful at identifying and addressing local 
issues and concerns; however, as a stand-alone assessment process, it has often been ineffective 
at addressing larger scale issues. The site-specific analysis process will be significantly enhanced, 
predominantly by the context provided by higher scales of analysis when assessing cumulative 
effects. This process should further identify the monitoring necessary to meet those needs 
identified during Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. 

Management Activity Levels for Individual 
National Forests and BLM Resource Areas 

Forest and range clusters are described in Chapter 2 in terms of resource conditions, risks, and 
opportunities. Management emphasis (Conserve, Restore, Produce, or a combination of these) is 
discussed in Chapter 3 for each alternative, based on the characteristics and conditions within the 
clusters and the theme of each alternative. Sub-basin Review and Ecosystem Analysis at the 
Watershed Scale will review and validate or update these conditions, risks, and opportunities for 
individual subbasins. 

Tables 3-6 and 3-7 in Chapter 3 show management activity levels predicted to occur as the result 
of changes in management emphasis, and goals and objectives for each alternative. The data used 
to generate these tables were broad in nature and appropriate to this scale of analysis. These 
estimates were used to run models and to assist in the evaluation of the alternatives. At this 
broad-scale, there is confidence that the activity tables are good indicators of outcomes of 
implementation of each alternative, or the relative differences between the alternatives; however, 
they should not be viewed as targets or requirements. 

This Draft EIS sets forth priorities for areas where activities might occur based upon the forest and 
range clusters and management opportunities identified in the Scientific Assessment. The EIS 
team developed alternative strategies in the form of management priorities, DRFCs, goals, objectives, 
and standards. The priorities and constraints to types of activities that might occur in certain 
areas (such as riparian conservation areas) have also been described in each alternative. Based on 
ecosystem analysis to be performed, for the most part, after the ROD is signed, Forest Service and 
BLM administrative units, working in close coordination with other administrative units, other 
Federal agencies. State and local governments, tribes, and the public, will determine which activities. 
in what proportions, are appropriate for each administrative unit to accomplish. Time frames and 
actual locations for these activities will be developed during this process. Actual activity levels 
occurring during implementation will be monitored and differences from projected levels will be 
evaluated. The effectiveness of activities in achieving desired outcomes will also be assessed. 
Selection of activities at the project level would become part of an adaptive management approach. 



S-yyyyy^yyyyy .vi-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:--^ yy-yyyy :■::■: :■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■: :■: yyyyyy y ■yyyy.yyyyyyy y y >:■: yyyyyy :■:■:, :■:,-: :■::■. :■■■,. ,: ■: ■■: 



Interagency Cumulative Effects Analysis 

The ecosystem management strategy proposed in this document is based on dynamic assessments 
that provide characterizations at different levels, and a monitoring and evaluation mechanism that 
helps validate or modify our current understanding about cause-and-effect relationships. The 
strategy will support decisions closer to the level that the issue, ecosystem process, or risk to 
ecosystem integrity occurs, through an adaptive approach. Through such a process cumulative 
effects can be observed and understood at different levels as well, and can more effectively be used 
by decision makers at the appropriate decision level. 

As discussed in the section titled Management Priorities, understanding the cumulative effects of 
activities being proposed will be greatly aided by information garnered during the step-down 
analysis process; however, a formal determination of cumulative effects will be made at the 
decision-making levels discussed in the section titled Nature of Planning on National Forest 
System and BLM Lands. Likewise, monitoring and evaluation (see A Framework for Monitoring, 
Evaluation, and Adaptive Management later in this appendix) will provide vital information for 
determining if desired outcomes are being achieved, which will feed into decisions through land 
use plan amendments and revisions, and through site-specific actions. 

A coordinated and consistent approach between the Forest Service and BLM, and involvement of 
the other Federal partner agencies, will be crucial to the successful understanding of cumulative 
effects of broad-scale decisions made through this process. The Implementation Team will further 
develop these concepts prior to publication of the ROD. 

This cumulative effects analysis process must be developed within the context of current legal 
definitions. The following information is provided to help the reader understand how the terms 
"cumulative impacts" and "cumulative effects" are defined in a legal context. 

The term "cumulative impact" is defined in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 
for NEPA at 40 CFR 1508.7; the Endangered Species Act (ESA) also defines "cumulative effects" at 
50 CFR 402.02. To fully understand the use and meaning of the CEQ definition, we also need to 
look at other portions of the CEQ regulations at 1508.1, Terminology and 1508.8 Effects: 

NEPA 1508.1 Terminology: The terminology of this part shall be uniform throughout the 
Federal Government. 

NEPA 1508.7 Cumulative impact: Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment 
which results from the incremental impact of action when added to other past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 
person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor 
but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

NEPA 1508.8 Effects: Include (a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at 
the same time and place, (b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later 
in time and farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect 
effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in 
the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and 
water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. 

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects include 
ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structure, and 
functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, 
whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from 
actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the 
agency believes that the effects will be beneficial. 



":';.';iiS=!';.:.:::.:';. : '-. ::::■:■■■■•■:•:/:■ : ::\ : Lrz::-: : "r^ 









ESA 402.2 Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private activities, not 
involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of 
the Federal action subject to consultation. ■ 

Snags and Downed Woody Debris 

The action alternatives in the Draft E1S propose a variety of management options for forest 
vegetation to achieve a pattern that is more consistent with endemic levels of insects and diseases 
and natural fire regimes. The action alternatives propose reducing fuels and reintroducing fire 
across the landscape. This pattern on the landscape will also need to be managed to provide 
adequate levels of snag and downed woody debris habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species in the 
short-term, and to provide for long-term soil productivity. 

Most current snag standards have been in place for 10 to 15 years. More is now known about 
interrelationships between ecosystem structures and processes, and these standards may not be 
consistent with other important variables that must also be considered. For instance, in 
determining desired snags per acre, consistency with fire or insect and disease disturbance regimes 
has often been overlooked. These disturbance regimes are desirable for creating and maintaining 
landscape patterns and micro-habitat structures that support native plants and animals. These 
regimes are variable and consequently the patterns that result are also variable. Ideally, 
management activities should focus on developing and maintaining a variable patchwork of 
landscape patterns whose living and dead structural attributes are consistent with biophysical 
environments and natural disturbance regimes. 

HA-S7 (Table 3-5) directs administrative units to review existing information or conduct the 
appropriate analysis to link snag levels and recruitment standards to more localized biophysical 
environments. This same approach would be developed for determining the amount of coarse 
woody debris to retain, as directed by standards PE-S1, PE-S2, and HA-S8. Between publication of 
the Draft and Final EISs, a team will develop a consistent methodology and criteria for determining 
the appropriate levels. This will be reflected in the Record(s) of Decision. Although the goal is to 
move toward patterns that are consistent with natural disturbance processes, in the interim some 
adaptations may be necessary to ensure that no vital habitat is lost during the transition. For 
instance, to provide quality, quantity and distribution of snags in the short term, the amounts may 
have to be higher than expected for the biophysical environment on one site to compensate for 
another site. 

Policies on Special Status Species 

Not all special status species were analyzed at the broad-scale since populations may be endemic, 
may be most influenced by factors outside the control of the Forest Service or BLM, or for other 
reasons may be best addressed at finer scales of analysis. These species are covered under 
existing policies currently being implemented by the Forest Service and BLM and described or 
referenced below. 

Under Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670, Forest Service objectives for threatened, endangered, 
proposed, and sensitive species are outlined. The process of reviewing all Forest Service planned, 
funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on these species 
through the development of biological evaluations are described. In addition, FSM 2670.32 
describes the objectives, responsibilities and processes associated with the Forest Service sensitive 
species program. Key objectives include: 

♦ Assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species: 

♦As part of the NEPA process, review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to 
determine their potential effect on sensitive species; 



♦Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern; 

♦ If impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the 
population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. (The 
line officer, with project approval authority, makes the decision to allow or disallow 
impact, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create significant 
trends toward Federal listing.) 

BLM Manual 6840 provides policy and guidance for the conservation of special status species of 
plants and animals and their habitats. This group of species includes those that are officially 
listed, are proposed for listing, or are candidates for listing under the provisions of ESA; are State 
listed as endangered or threatened; and BLM sensitive, which are designated at the State Office level. 

For Federal candidates such as bull trout or the spotted frog, the 6840 policies require that the BLM 
will carry out management, consistent with the principles of multiple use, for the conservation of 
candidate species and their habitats. The BLM is required to ensure that the actions authorized, 
funded, or carried out do not contribute to the need to list candidate species as threatened or 
endangered. The policy directs the agency to determine the status and distribution, and to address 
the species in land use plans, in plan implementation, and in monitoring and evaluation. 

BLM sensitive species are designated by the BLM State directors and are defined as species that 
may easily become endangered or threatened within a State. 

Under the BLM Manual 6840, the BLM is also directed to cooperate with States where they have 
species listed as threatened or endangered, to assist States in meeting their management objectives. 

Data Management and Technology Transfer 

A key element for ecosystem management is the need for consistent, current, and accurate 
information concerning the ecological and biophysical environments across the landscape. The 
collection and management of this data and information among tribal. Federal, State, and local 
agencies need to be effectively coordinated and shared in order to implement ecosystem 
management. Currently, data are collected in many formats among and within agencies. 
Developing a minimum data standard for vegetation, aquatic, fisheries, and terrestrial 
components of the landscape should be explored. 

To facilitate implementation of the decisions for this EIS and the findings of the scientific body of 
work, technical support will continue after the Record of Decision is signed. This support could 
consist of workshops, a science advisory group; a spatial analysis team; release, maintenance, and 
upkeep of the GIS database; maintenance and updates of the various databases and models that 
were developed for the ICBEMP; and technical assistance to support plan amendments (Information 
Systems [Gravenmier et al. 1996] chapter of the Assessment of Ecosystem Components). 

Several types of workshops have been considered that could be useful in dissemination of the 
information gained during development of the ICBEMP. Technology transfer teams are crucial for 
providing user support and training to the field offices over the next several years. Science advisory 
groups could interpret, consult, and provide advice on ICBEMP products, data, databases, and 
models. A spatial analysis team could coordinate and maintain the GIS database, and provide data 
' layer maintenance for key layers. The GIS data (170 themes) and associated databases (approximately 20) 
collected and created for use in the Scientific Assessment needs to be managed, maintained and shared. A 
central information clearinghouse could be established to support the update and implementation of 
Forest and BLM District land use plans. A few of the existing models have been fully documented and 
have user guides (Information Systems [Gravenmier et al. 1996] chapter of the Assessment of 
Ecosystem Components). These issues will be addressed in the final Implementation Plan. 






Framework for Monitoring, 
Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 

Introduction 

The objective of this section of the appendix is to provide a framework to develop a specific monitoring 
and evaluation plan to measure the conditions and trends in the ICBEMP area. The information 
developed through the monitoring process can be used to assess management strategies, alter 
decisions, change implementation, or maintain current management direction. This Framework 
builds on A Framework for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and the two Draft 
EISs. This framework is also based on concepts from An Interagency Framework for Monitoring the 
President's Forest Ecosystem Plan, April 1994. The actual monitoring plan will be developed prior 
to release of the Final EIS(s). 

Monitoring and evaluation play pivotal roles in the adaptive management process, primarily to 
detect undesirable changes early enough that management activities can be modified to work 
toward achieving the desired goals and objectives of the plan. Adaptive management strategies 
must include all four parts of the process: planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. 
Resources must be allocated and priorities established so that all parts of adaptive management 
are completed over an appropriate time frame and no part is emphasized at the expense of another. 

Monitoring is the process of collecting information to determine if ecosystem management 
strategies are being implemented as planned, if management goals and objectives are being met, 
and if there are any unanticipated results from implementing planned management strategies. 
Based on an evaluation of the monitoring information, current management can be maintained or 
adjusted to meet ecosystem management goals. 

To be effective, monitoring and evaluation must be treated as an integral component of land 
management, be well conceived, and be adequately funded. Also, monitoring will necessitate a 
major, cooperative effort involving interested and affected parties, including Federal, State, local 
governments, tribes, Resource Advisory Councils, Provincial Advisory Committees, local 
communities, private landowners, and special interest groups. These parties share a common 
interest in attempting to achieve the objectives that emerged from the ICBEMP. 

Just as ecosystems operate within a hierarchy, monitoring and evaluations follow the same logic. 
Each level of an ecosystem has discrete ecological functions but at the same time is part of the 
larger, integrated whole. Monitoring needs to follow the same pattern, answering questions and 
measuring trends at the various levels within the project area. Certain issues and activities within 
the project area can have effects at the broadest level, such as activities that affect air quality, 
noxious weeds, or wide-ranging species. Some issues or activities, such as forest health, juniper 
encroachment, and species endemism, operate within smaller geographic areas. Yet others are 
mostly of local concern, such as access management and municipal watersheds that may affect 
local communities. Monitoring strategies need to recognize this hierarchy and provide for data 
collection and evaluation at the appropriate levels. 

A coordinated interagency interdisciplinary monitoring system is needed to determine the health 
and integrity of the project area ecosystems, determine condition and trends, and provide the basis 
for needed changes in management. Numerous Federal and non-Federal monitoring activities 
currently exist within the project area. Because of the wide variety of monitoring activities, the 
dispersed nature of data, and the inconsistency in the kinds of data collected, it is difficult and 
sometimes impossible to judge the health and integrity of the ecosystem at the regional level. Data 
should be collected for the different ownerships within ecosystems so that it can be aggregated to 
answer broad-scale questions. Once regional data elements are identified for monitoring, 
appropriate monitoring systems can be designed to allow for analyses. 



Conceptual Framework of Monitoring 

The conceptual framework contains four elements: goals, scope, general approach, and 
relationship of monitoring to other activities. 

Goals of Monitoring 

Monitoring efforts provide information to: (1) determine if planned activities have been 
implemented and standards and guidelines are being followed, (2) detect magnitude and duration 
of change in conditions and detect trends, (3) formulate and test hypotheses as to the cause of the 
changes, and (4) help managers better understand the causes of change and predict impacts. 

Information provided through monitoring can be used to measure success in meeting plan goals. 
The Scientific Assessment and two Draft EISs identified the indicators used in making decisions. 
These indicators were considered when developing evaluation questions, identifying data needs, 
and monitoring process. 

Under this approach, departures from expected conditions or other quantities are not treated as 
failures, but rather as new information to improve the quality of land management. Actions taken 
could be mitigation, change of actions in the future, and revised goals, or some mix of these. This 
iterative approach is referred to as adaptive management, described further in the Relationship of 
Monitoring to Other Activities section. 

Scope of Monitoring 

The monitoring and evaluation strategy focuses on Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands in 
the project area (see Map 1-1 in Chapter 1). Although the focus is on Forest Service- and BLM- 
administered lands, monitoring could cross administrative boundaries to measure the Federal 
component of the ecosystem. Monitoring will be a multi-agency effort. 

Because ecosystems are complexes of bio tic, abiotic, and human elements interacting over time 
and space, the biological, physical, social, and economic aspects will need to be monitored to 
determine if ecosystem goals are being met. 

A major challenge in designing a monitoring program is to accommodate a variety of geographic 
levels (for example, basin, sub-basin, watershed). A program needs to be developed in a manner 
that allows information gathered locally to be compiled and interpreted or analyzed to answer 
broad regional questions. In addition, the program needs flexibility to allow for monitoring and 
evaluation at the regional level to better address broad-scale questions. 

Also challenging to development of a comprehensive monitoring plan is the complex array of 
landscapes, resources, management prescriptions, species requiring attention, and geographic 
areas that must be addressed. Adding to the challenge is that the priority for funds and /or 
personnel has often been low for monitoring and evaluation activities. 

Sharing of information, adoption of data standards, and training among Federal agencies and 
other interested parties is vital for success. 



■ 

... .... ........ ....... ....„..., 



General Approach of Monitoring Strategy 

The following criteria should be considered when designing the monitoring strategy and should be 
appropriate at any level: 

♦ Be cost effective so that meaningful monitoring can be done within agency budgets: 

♦ Support management objectives and address the identified issues and problems; 

♦ Be sensitive to significant changes in ecological and social systems: 
♦Address the hierarchy of geographic scales (basin, sub-basin, watershed); 

♦ Provide early warning so appropriate actions can be taken in a timely manner; 

♦ Provide a basis for natural resource policy decisions through analysis at various levels; 

♦ Provide for integration of information among resource functions to support efficiency and 
ecologically based decision making; 

♦ Integrate monitoring at the landscape level with monitoring at the subregional and regional levels; 

♦ Emphasize sound experimental design and standardized data collection which will support 
statistical analysis where necessary; 

♦ Integrate inventories into the monitoring system; 

♦ Provide for corporate storage and systematic compilation, interpretation, and analysis of data; 

♦ Be accessible across organizational levels and administrative boundaries: 

♦ Be implementable within the existing agency structure; 

♦ Ensure data are promptly analyzed and applied in adaptive management; 

♦ Provide for distribution of results in a timely and effective manner. 

The general approach is to measure variables that index whole ecosystems. Significant change in 
these variables indicates a need for further study. Initially, this approach does not expect to 
directly identify cause-effect relationships; although they are needed, cause-effects relationships 
are left for follow-up investigations. Instead, it focuses on measuring change in the system which 
would indicate that further study and evaluation is warranted. 

An initial step in developing the monitoring strategy is to define the questions that need to be 
answered at the regional level to evaluate attainment of ecosystem management goals and 
objectives in the project area. These questions can be used to focus the monitoring strategy on 
appropriate issues and avoid gathering information which has limited value in answering pertinent 
regional level questions. The questions will also be used to help design a system that can be 
implemented within agency budgets. 

Technical and scientific staffs, in consultation with field managers, need to play a key role in 
designing a monitoring strategy — to help select key monitoring elements and indicators that can be 
statistically sampled and can provide desired data at a reasonable cost, and to help develop and 
shape the monitoring questions. 

The "reductionist" approach (that is, measuring all the insects, mammals, soil properties, water, 
and the like) should not be used. Given limitations on funding, the approach is not affordable, and 
the complexity could never be understood. Equally important, measurements of each of these 
ecological elements may not be necessary to address key, identified questions. However, individual 
species or other taxonomic groups (such as guilds and families) or physical elements could be used 
if they are good indicators. Research can evaluate the effectiveness of alterative measures to 
improve future monitoring efforts. 



: w-B:Mm&~> S:™»»B('«i|ltS« 



-■ ■--:-:. ...■■.:-:■■-;■ ffiffiffi f ?ffW&f?M 'tf'ft'fg'i ' ' ' '. ■ ■■■.-,:■■:,.--;■ ■:■■■:■■■ fp^ffi$%T*"$. '" V : : '"'"'' : ''. ■"''':' ■ : ' ''.''''. 



A standard core set of data elements should be collected. Core data are the minimum set of 
variables to be collected at all scales. In all cases, standardized measurement and reporting 
protocols will be determined because of the essential need for consistency. Where possible, 
monitoring protocols should be designed to integrate existing monitoring efforts, and /or address 
multiple questions. Also, the design should allow flexibility for local administrative units to add 
data elements needed to answer subregional and landscape level questions. 

The variables to be monitored may be indicators or surrogates representing other physical, 
biological, socioeconomic, cultural, and/or ecological processes. They must describe conditions 
and trends for functional, healthy ecosystems and be quantifiable and measurable in a repeatable 
way. A range of values for the variables may often be measured to account for the spatial and 
temporal variability found in a particular geographic area. 

Determining the specific monitoring approach for any question depends on knowing detailed 
information on conditions that can only be determined on the ground. For example, trend 
assessment requires simply gathering baseline or status information. However, where continuous 
coverage for monitoring structure and patten is important, monitoring technique may include 
remote sensing; where vegetative detail and ground-level measurement are essential, sample-based 
systems would be used in monitoring. Successful implementation of large-scale monitoring may 
require a combination of approaches. 



Relationship of Mi 



nt 



U ,:,-:■:' 



'■ 



Other Activitiei 



Relationship of Monitoring to Adaptive Management Process 

Adaptive management is a continuing process of planning, implementation, monitoring, and 
evaluation to adjust management strategies to meet goals and objectives of ecosystem 
management. It can be depicted as the 
continuous circle shown in Figure 1 . 
Monitoring has a special role to play in adaptive 
management: to detect changes so that 
management activities can be modified to 
achieve management objectives. 

Adaptive management emphasizes results, such 

as the achievement of desired functions, 

processes and interrelationships of ecosystem 

components. Since knowledge is incomplete 

when decisions are made, adjustments are made 

through time. A continual feedback loop based 

on new information allows for mid-course 

corrections to standards, guidelines, and 

underlying assumptions (at time intervals 

appropriate to the systems, processes, and 

functions analyzed) , in order to meet the 

planned goals and objectives. It also provides a model for adjusting goals and objectives as new 

information develops through monitoring or other means and as public desires change. 

Relationship of Monitoring to Research 

Research participation in the development of monitoring protocols is essential to the success of the 
adaptive management process described above. Data obtained through monitoring activities in a 
systematic and statistically valid manner can be used by scientists to develop research hypotheses 
related to priority issues. Conversely, the results obtained through research can be used to further 
refine the protocols and strategies used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of activities 
occurring in the implementation of ecosystem management. 




Figure 1 . Adaptive Management Process 



.,,■,■.;.-:-, :.v;;.:::;: : : :;: : 



Relationship of Monitoring to Ecosystem Analysis 

Ecosystem analysis is a process to characterize human and ecological features, conditions, 
processes, and interactions within a geographic area. The analysis is intended to help estimate 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of management activities and guide the general type, 
location and sequence of appropriate management activities within a geographic area. The tiered 
ecosystem analysis process developed in the ICBEMP is the analysis portion of adaptive 
management. For adaptive management to work, the decision-making system needs to be 
combined with the tiered analysis system so that analysis is done at the same scales as planning, 
implementation, and monitoring. 

Reliance on achieving desired outcomes through local ecosystem analysis requires the assurance 
of an adequate monitoring, evaluation, and accountability system. A monitoring strategy will focus 
on the key issues and objectives at hand, link monitoring responsibilities at different 
organizational levels, and focus on the achievement of objectives and time frames outlined in the 
alternatives. Through this process, local BLM and Forest Service managers will be held 
accountable to ensure that on-the-ground decisions and activities maintain overall integrity of 
ecosystems at the landscape level and are linked to broader-level desired outcomes. 

Currently, ecosystem analysis is often based on existing data; however, it should also incorporate 
monitoring and evaluation information. Ecosystem analysis information should additionally be 
considered in developing future monitoring plans. Information derived from Ecosystem analysis is 
used to: guide management prescriptions, including the setting and refining of boundaries in 
riparian areas; set restoration strategies and priorities; and reveal the useful indicators for 
monitoring environmental change. 

For further information about the interrelationship between ecosystem analysis and monitoring, 
refer to the handbook, Federal Guide Jor Watershed Analysis, Version 2.2, which has been 
developed to assist in Ecosystem Analysis. 

Relationship of Monitoring to Inventory and Survey 

Inventories and surveys are parts of the adaptive management framework and need to be closely 
linked with monitoring. Information gathered in the inventoiy and survey process form a baseline 
from which trends in ecosystem conditions can be measured. Virtually all the concerns identified 
in this framework must be considered in the design of a sound inventoiy system. 

Permanent, sample-based inventory plot systems established at the subregional level within a 
regional level context and maintained by the Forest Service and BLM will be part of the overall 
monitoring framework. 

Relationship of Monitoring to Evaluation 

Evaluation is a process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if the 
management goals and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. This 
portion of the adaptive approach examines the monitoring data gathered over time and uses it to 
draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated goals and objectives and. if 
not, why. The conclusions are used to make recommendations on whether to continue current 
management or what changes need to be made in management practices to meet goals and 
objectives. The results could be changes in mitigating measures, future actions, monitoring 
elements, objectives, standards, guidelines, or some mixture of these. 



-■-■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■x-^-:-:-^ ■■■......■..■■;■■.■■: 



Monitoring Components 

This framework provides a starting point for building a Monitoring Program based on identifying 
the fundamental kinds of information that must be gathered to evaluate the success of ecosystem 
management. The next section of this document focuses on specific reasons for monitoring 
(evaluation questions) and proposes items to monitor (units of measure). In addition, the issue of 
scale or the appropriate geographic level of monitoring is addressed. 

Types of Monitoring 

Four types of monitoring (implementation, effectiveness, validation, and baseline) will be applied 
to meet management objectives and to evaluate management practices used in implementing local 
plans. These four types of monitoring encompass the broad spectrum of monitoring, some of 
which may be termed differently by certain agencies. All four types of monitoring need to occur to 
achieve the goals of the adaptive management process. 

Implementation Monitoring 

Implementation monitoring is the most basic type of monitoring and simply determines whether 
planned activities have been implemented and whether the standards and guidelines were 
followed. Some agencies call this compliance monitoring. Standards address land conditions that 
must be maintained, activities that are required, and processes that must be followed. Guidelines 
address the techniques that may be used in achieving planned activities. 

Effectiveness Monitoring 

Effectiveness monitoring is aimed at determining if the implementation of activities has achieved 
the desired goals and objectives, and whether the standards and guidelines have attained the goals 
and objectives of ecosystem management. Success may be measured against the benchmark of 
desired future condition. Cause-effect relationships will ultimately need to be understood to 
ensure that management actions result in desired conditions. 

Validation Monitoring 

Validation monitoring is intended to ascertain whether a cause-and-effect relationship exists 
among management activities or resources being managed. It confirms whether the predicted 
results occurred and if assumptions and models used in developing the plan are correct. While 
recognized for being demanding and expensive, validation monitoring is equally as important as 
implementation, effectiveness, and baseline monitoring. 

Baseline Monitoring 

Baseline monitoring is used to establish reference conditions by monitoring elements or processes 
that may be affected by management activities. Generally, the reference conditions are natural or 
relatively unaffected by human activities. 



Defining Specific Evaluation Questions/or the Interior 
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

Each monitoring type can be expressed in definite terms that will lead to specific and directed 
measurements. Each type has a specific set of objectives, which are applied differently depending 
on the question addressed. This section identifies general but important questions which should 
be addressed in the monitoring process. The questions are viewed as a starting point for 
development of an interdisciplinary, interagency monitoring program. Additional questions or 
adjustments to the list are expected to be identified by an interagency monitoring committee. 
Using the ICBEMP issues, goals, and objectives and the list of questions developed to address 
them, the committee will recommend for decision 10 to 15 of the most important items to track at 
the regional level. Monitoring plans often go unimplemented because they are too costly. This 
focused approach is essential to ensure agencies can afford to implement an appropriate, 
coordinated monitoring plan. 

Implementation Questions 

Implementation of ICBEMP decisions consists of management of three interrelated systems: 
Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Socioeconomic - within the context of Management Strategies (Conserve, 
Restore, Produce and combinations) and associated direction. The components of the decision 
which will drive implementation include: 

♦ Goals and objectives for managing ecosystems: 

♦ Management Strategies applied to subbasins; 

♦ Standards and guidelines for managing ecosystem components; 

♦ Ecosystem Analysis; 

♦ Consideration of socioeconomic effects; and 
♦An adaptive management or learning process. 

Monitoring and evaluation are organized around these components and required processes. 

The general thrust of implementation monitoring and evaluation is to determine if Forest Service- 
and BLM-administered lands and systems are being managed according to plan. More specifically, 
given its particular focus, implementation monitoring addresses the following question: 

♦Are the planned activities being accomplished and are the standards and guidelines being 
followed? 

Implementation Monitoring for Aquatic Systems 

Specific questions include: 

♦Are Riparian Management Objectives developed and applied? 

♦Are Riparian Conservation Area widths and associated direction established and applied? 

♦Are management activities, including restoration projects, consistent with RMOs and RCA 
standards and guidelines? 

♦Are management activities, including restoration projects, consistent with standards and 
guidelines for Category 1-3 subbasins? (Generally addressed in questions about RCAs. RMOs. 
and Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale.) 

Evaluation will determine if the required area designations and conditions for riparian and other 
areas have been established and used, if required conditions are being met. and whether 






activities occur which are permitted or not allowed. Key monitoring items to evaluate the above 
questions include: 

♦ For activities - presence of timber harvest, kinds of other timber management activities, presence 
of grazing by ungulates, the specific conditions in which activities occurred, and the like. 

Implementation Monitoring for Terrestrial Systems 

For Forested Lands and Rangelands, specific questions include: 

♦Are vegetation management activities for forested lands and rangelands being accomplished as 
predicted or planned, and are unplanned disturbance mechanisms (such as, wildfire, insects, 
and floods) occurring within acceptable ranges? 

♦Are vegetation management and other activities for forests and rangelands being conducted 
according to standards and guidelines? 

Evaluation for forests and rangelands is aimed at determining if planned management activities 
are being carried out and standards and guidelines are being met. Key monitoring items are: 

♦ For activities - type and amount (acres) of vegetative manipulations (such as harvest, 
reforestation, rangeland seeding, prescribed fire, grazing) and "natural" events (such as 
wildfire, wildlife, and insects and disease). 

♦ For conditions - post treatment or disturbance conditions by potential vegetation group such as: 

- Forest composition, densities and structures in harvest or thinned area 

- forage utilization 

- woody residue levels 

- noxious weeds and exotic plant species 

- snags, dead and downed trees 

- wildfire intensity and residual vegetation conditions 

For terrestrial species, specific questions include: 

♦Are activities and protection requirements being implemented as planned for management of 
animal and plant species habitats? 

♦Are management practices and activities meeting terrestrial (animal and plant) habitat 
standards (and guidelines) for occurrence, distribution, size, and connectivity of late/old 
structure? 

♦Are management practices meeting requirements for special habitat features (including large 
trees, snags, downed wood, habitat linkages, road densities, caves, wet areas, and others) and 
endemic species habitats? 

♦Are approved Recovery Plans being followed? 

Implementation Monitoring includes the type and amount of various vegetative practices and 
activities and natural disturbance events and the direct effect of the disturbance (including post 
treatments) on habitats. 

Implementation Monitoring for Socioeconomic Systems 

Specific questions include: 

♦Are agencies, tribes, communities, Resource Advisory Councils, Provincial Advisory Committees and 
the public involved in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the plans/processes? 

Key items to evaluate include: 

♦ information sharing opportunities, 






♦ active partnerships, 

♦ collaborative efforts, 

♦ educational forums and workshops, and 

♦ community support and involvement. 

Implementation Monitoring for Sub-basin Review and Ecosystem Analysis at 
the Watershed Scale 

Specific questions include: 

♦ Has the Sub-basin Review or Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale been completed 
(according to Federal Guide requirements)? 

Key items to monitor include: 

♦ the completion and documentation of results. 

♦ the timing of planned analysis. 

Effectiveness Questions 

The purpose of effectiveness questions is to address how well planned actions and standards and 
guidelines achieve goals and objectives. The general effectiveness questions are: Is the 
implementation of management activities and are the standards and guidelines effective in 
attaining goals and objectives of the ICBEMP? To address these questions, the indicators are the 
items to be monitored because they are the important evaluation threads or ties through the Draft 
EISs. By measuring the same items in the same way, consistency in information and evaluation 
can be maintained. 

Ecosystem Analysis is expected to provide information about processes and patterns within a 
watershed and also provide an additional focus for monitoring at that level. Effectiveness 
monitoring should be undertaken at a variety of reference sites in geographically and ecologically 
similar areas. The sites could be selected to represent a number of different monitoring levels and 
require the assistance of statisticians to design an appropriate sampling regime. Where possible, 
reference sites should be chosen that are presently being monitored by administrative units to 
minimize data gathering costs. 

Effectiveness Monitoring for Aquatic Systems 

Specific questions include: 

♦Are the ecological health and integrity of the aquatic system recovering or sufficiently 
maintained to support recovery and maintenance of viable populations of anadromous fish 
species and other fish species and stocks considered sensitive or at risk by Forest Service and 
BLM or listed under the Endangered Species Act? 

♦Are desired habitat conditions for fish stocks identified to be at risk maintained where 
adequate, and are these conditions restored where inadequate? 

♦Are management practices effective in attaining and/or maintaining proper functioning 
channel and riparian conditions (Proper Functioning Condition) for streams? 

Key items are based on the Aquatic Strategy. For sample streams (and watersheds) within each 
aquatic Category 1-3 subbasin, key conditions to monitor include: 

♦ Water quality 

♦ Deep pools 



♦ Riparian vegetation abundance 

♦ Uniqueness 

♦ Integrity 

♦ Strongholds 

♦ Present salmonids or other native species. 

Additional items to monitor may be identified in Ecosystem Analysis. For example, the Clean 
Water Act directs that States adopt water quality standards and criteria as necessary to protect 
designated beneficial uses, such as cold water biota, recreation, and drinking water supply. These 
standards and criteria should be used in some instances to determine if water quality and the 
health of aquatic systems are being maintained. 

Effectiveness monitoring may also begin to link the effectiveness or impacts of management 
activities on key conditions. For example, harvest activities, roads, or other disturbances are 
important activities to monitor relative to aquatic systems. 

Effectiveness Monitoring for Terrestrial Ecosystems 

An overall goal of the ICBEMP is to protect, enhance and restore the conditions and processes of 
the forest land and rangeland ecosystems. 

For forests and rangeland ecosystems, specific questions include: 

♦Are management actions achieving forest vegetation structure, composition pattern, and fuel 
regimes that are resilient to most likely disturbances? 

♦Are management activities maintaining or restoring rangeland conditions within desired 
(levels) ranges? 

♦Are changes resulting from "natural" disturbance processes in the forest and rangeland 
ecosystems moving those vegetative types toward goals and objectives (appropriate regimes)? 

Monitoring and evaluation of forest and rangeland conditions focus on vegetative composition, 
structures, patterns and fuel loadings related to disturbance regimes. Key indicators and 
evaluation items for forests and rangelands at the landscape level include: 

♦ Forest composition, structure, density and pattern by forest potential vegetation group (acres) 
with emphasis on: 

- Dry Forest - late/old single story ponderosa pine; 

- Moist Forest - late/old multi-story stands of appropriate species; and 

- Cold Forest - appropriate forest structures, densities and composition. 

♦ Composition, condition and trend of rangeland vegetation by potential vegetation group with 
emphasis on native vegetation (acres) . 

- Spread of exotic species and juniper on rangelands. 

- Disturbance types, extent and intensities (acres /trends). 

For terrestrial species, specific questions include: 

♦Are management practices maintaining and protecting key habitats and special habitat 
features where adequate and restoration activities improving these habitats where inadequate? 

♦Are habitats of unique assemblages of species and areas high biodiversity protected and 
maintained? 

♦ Are recovery plans helping to (effectively) restore habitats and recover threatened or 
endangered species? 






Key monitoring and evaluation items include: 

♦ The size, abundance and distribution of important habitats and habitat features: 

- Late/old forest structures appropriate for given forest potential vegetation groups. 

- Habitat linkages and connectivity 

- Large trees and snags 2 1 "+ diameter at breast height 

- Native shrub steppe and native herb grassland potential vegetation groups. 

Effectiveness Monitoring for Natural Resource Use Levels 

Specific questions include: 

♦Are the projected levels of timber, livestock forage, recreation, and other resource outputs 
available and being produced at sustainable levels? 

Key items to measure and evaluate for each cluster and sub-basin include: 

♦ Timber harvest levels 

♦ Livestock grazing levels 

♦ Special Forest products 

♦ Mineral extraction 

♦ Recreation use/opportunities. 

Effectiveness Monitoring for Rural Economics and Communities 

Specific questions include: 

♦What is the contribution of Forest Service and BLM outputs to regional and sub-regional 
economics (county clusters) and economic opportunity? Is a diversity of recreation 
opportunities and scenic quality provided? 

♦Are management actions (activities) contributing to community vitality and resiliency? 

♦Are opportunities available for public participation? 

Key indicators to monitor include: 

♦ Demographics 

♦Timber and other natural resource based employment/personal income. 

♦ Payment in Lieu of Taxes /Government revenues 

♦ Community resiliency (index) 

♦ Lifestyles 

♦ Recreation opportunities - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum primitive/semi-primitive and 
roaded natural recreation availability 

♦ Scenic integrity 

♦ Public participation - effectiveness progress/collaboration. 

Effectiveness Monitoring for Indian Tribes 

Indian tribes have concerns within the scope of the project area. Specific monitoring questions 
include: 

♦ Do Indian tribes have access to and use of plant and animal species, products, ethno-habitats, 
and places for cultural and economic reasons? 

♦ Is habitat being managed for healthy, usable levels of resources upon which the tribes can 
exercise their tribal rights and interests? 



The key monitoring items include: 

♦ presence and availability of culturally significant plants, animals or fish, water and water 
quality, ethno habitats, and cultural resources in areas accessible to Indian tribes. 

Validation Questions 

The principal question related to validation is: Are the critical assumptions made in development 
and evaluation of the selected alternative valid? 

Key assumptions need to be validated regarding the relationships within and among ecosystem 
components. This will require a mix of inventory, monitoring, and research. For example, while some 
relationships (such as fish habitat needs) are fairly well understood, many relationships are not known. 
Where knowledge gaps exist, research and/or inventory will be needed. Where some knowledge 
exists, hypotheses can be proposed and tested through a combination of research and monitoring. 

Validation will be further developed in consultation with research. Basically, validation will 
address questions surrounding the accuracy of the key assumptions made in the ICBEMP. 

Four other types of validation should be pursued: 

1. Animal population ties to habitats, especially the species thought to be associated with late/ 
old forests. An approach toward historical conditions for vegetation is assumed to provide 
adequate habitat for species with different mobility capabilities. Are these assumptions valid? 

2. Relationships between activities and created conditions. The question is: What conditions are 
created with different vegetation management activities, in what existing conditions, and for 
which kinds of forest and rangeland? The plan assumes certain cause-effect relationships. 

3. Relationships between activities and human communities. The analysis of the alternatives 
assumed that certain economic effects and social structures result from different activities. 
Are these relationships between forest and range activities and society valid? 

4. Relationships between forest and rangeland conditions and human communities. Plan 
analysis assumed that communities react in certain ways to forest and rangeland conditions, 
and that these actions may be related to scale of the human community (local, regional, or 
national). One example is visual conditions. The monitoring questions are: Are these 
assumptions valid? Do they continue to hold true in the future, or will the wants and 
demands of the public lands change? 

Key items to monitor for each of the above questions is yet to be identified. Identification and 
measurement will rely on a mix of inventory, survey, other monitoring and research. 

Baseline Monitoring Questions 

The primary baseline question is: Have key baseline reference monitoring elements and processes 
been established and are data available which can be used to evaluate the effects of future 
management activities? 

Two types of baseline monitoring should be pursued: 

1. The current ecological condition of the project area is documented. The ICBEMP has 
developed extensive baseline data. It should be evaluated to see if it is sufficient to answer 
key future questions about ecosystem trends. The interagency monitoring committee should 
propose solutions for filling critical gaps in baseline data. 

2. Data on reference conditions of representative ecosystems that are natural or substantially 
unaffected by human activity should be collected where it is. critical for evaluating ecosystem 
management effects and future management options. 



■■ ■ -■: ■■""■ : '.■::■:■£: :~ ;:"■'■'. :'. 






Scale for Monitoring 

Monitoring will occur at various scales throughout the project area. The following table represents 
the first approximation of the level at which the different types of monitoring and the individual 
monitoring questions would be addressed. As the monitoring questions are refined, the locations 
for monitoring can be adjusted. 



Table 1. Scale for Monitoring 




ICBEMP 






Forest/BLM 


Watershed/ 




Monitoring 


Project 


Region/ 


Sub- 


District/ 


Subwater- 


Stand/ 


Questions 


Area 


State 


Region 


River Basin 


shed 


Reach 


Implementation 














Aquatics 








♦ 


♦♦ 


^^ 


Terrestrial 














Vegetation 






■:/ 


♦♦ 


♦♦ 


♦♦ 


Wildlife 






:/ 


♦♦ 


♦♦ 


♦♦ 


Socio-Economic 






O 


♦♦ 


<> 




Ecosystem 






• 


♦ 


♦♦ 


■:■ 


Analysis 














Effectiveness 














Aquatics 


o 


^^ 


<>o 


♦♦ 


♦♦ 


<• 


Terrestrial 














Vegetation 


o 


o 


v-v 


♦♦ 


O 




Wildlife 


o 


C'O 


Ov 


♦♦ 


♦ 




Natural Resource 


o 


^^ 


<>0 


♦♦ 






Use Levels 














Rural Economics 


/% 


4& 


<}' 


♦♦ 






and Communities 














Native American People 


o 


vv 


♦♦ 


♦ 


V 


Validation 


Not Rated ~ Emphasized at Larger Scales 






Baseline 


Not Rated ~ Occurs at All Scales 







♦♦ Primary Monitoring Level 
♦ Secondary Monitoring Level 
\/ Potential Monitoring Level 



Developing Interagency and Intergovernmental 
Monitoring 

Development and implementation of monitoring to collect, report, and evaluate data in a manner 
that is both scientifically credible and economically feasible needs to be carefully designed and 
coordinated. As the previous sections explained, foremost needs are: 

♦ to develop and implement a common design framework and common indicators or 
environmental measurements. 



:-.:::■:- 






■■■■■■; ■ ■; : ; : ■ ■ ; ;; . : : ; :; i ;::; ■ : : ■; : :■■;;:'. ; : : : ; :;;';: ; 's'J-.'-li 22iIH*3S£;S . 5 ■'■?;■■ ' 13'S 



♦ to identify specific indicators within each monitoring component or activity, along with 
protocols and methodologies for their measurement and quality assurance, and 

♦ to establish a required level of detection ability, data quality objectives, and precision. 

As also explained in previous sections, the monitoring framework that is established should: (1) be 
cost effective, (2) permit data to be integrated through statistical or modeling approaches to provide 
quantitative inputs to the adaptive management process, and (3) accommodate multiple 
geographical scales and provide a consistent process for establishing monitoring sites, frequency of 
sampling, level of sampling, and specific techniques for analysis, synthesis, and reporting. 
Following this approach is critical to ensuring that consistent collection, integration, and 
evaluation of monitoring data occur among projects, watersheds, regions, agencies, and over long 
time periods. 

Following is a five- step process for establishing a monitoring network: 



Step 1 
Step 2 
Step 3 
Step 4 
Step 5 



Establish linkages between and among agencies, tribes, advisory groups, and others. 

Identify information needs. 

Survey and evaluate ongoing monitoring efforts. 

Establish technical details. 

Establish a repository system for collected data, storage, and analysis. 



Step 1 . Establish Linkages Between and Among Agencies and 
Tribes 

Both technical and administrative linkages need to be developed and maintained to implement this 
ICBEMP monitoring effort. This interagency effort will play a major role in coordinating 
implementation and overseeing a monitoring program. 

To implement the ICBEMP interagency, regional-scale monitoring effort, an interagency monitoring 
committee could be formed under the direction of the interagency regional executives. A goal of 
the committee would be to integrate project area monitoring into the existing agency organizational 
structures. The Committee would develop specific technical details (design, indicators, protocols) 
and guidance for monitoring the ecosystem at the project area level, integrating data-gathering 
needs into existing field data-gathering efforts, and assembling it into useful forms for project area 
evaluations. It would also develop a system to manage the monitoring data using existing agency 
organizational structures. All protocols developed by the committee could be coordinated with 
ongoing monitoring efforts, including those of Federal, State, and local governments and tribes. 

The committee could be co-chaired by BLM and Forest Service monitoring coordinators and be 
assisted by participating agencies and universities as needed. The interagency monitoring 
co-chairs would need to ensure that a coordinated, multi-organizational approach to monitoring is 
developed. The committee could contain a staff with technical expertise in monitoring, statistics, 
and social and environmental sciences. Staff assignments could provide flexibility to draw on 
different disciplines and expertise as the need arises. The regional executives of the participating 
agencies would need to ensure the approach developed by the committee is adequately funded at 
all organizational levels. 

Monitoring responsibilities are expected to vary by the type of monitoring. The Forest Service and 
BLM administrative units or combinations of administrative units would accomplish most of the 
implementation monitoring and some of the effectiveness and baseline monitoring. Validation 
monitoring and some effectiveness monitoring are expected to be accomplished at broader scales 
and involve the coordinated interagency processes. 



Specific monitoring assignments may be made to individual agencies within the context of an 
integrated approach. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be assigned to measure 
and record preselected habitat conditions and/or animal populations. The National Marine 
Fisheries Service could be assigned different habitats and/or populations offish. Affected State 
agencies may assume responsibilities for selected items within their respective States. The land 
management agencies and EPA would have their own selected responsibilities, as could the various 
tribes, should they choose to accept these roles. 

In addition, private citizens and groups will be encouraged to participate in monitoring. This 
participation will be coordinated by individual agencies, as determined by the monitoring items, 
type and scale of monitoring, and agency responsibility. At the subregional or regional scales. 
Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), Provincial Advisory Councils, Coalition of Counties, or other 
bodies may also participate in monitoring through methods developed by the Committee. 

Step 2. Identify Information Needs 

The key monitoring items listed previously are the first approximation of regional monitoring 
questions and information needs as they relate to plan goals, objectives and standards. The lists 
will be subjected to further peer and agency review, which may result in changes or additions to 
the list. 

When additional monitoring objectives and questions are agreed upon, a list of relevant indicators 
must be developed. This list should be based on current ecological knowledge and models, and it 
should represent a full range of possible indicators that address the management questions. 

Each indicator on the list should be assessed using the following criteria: 

♦ Is there an explicit relationship to the questions and monitoring objectives? 

♦ Do the indicators reflect changes in the resource condition, status or value at multiple scales? 
♦And, do these indicators distinguish between the system response and natural variability? 
♦Are protocols available and adequate for reliable and repeatable measurement? 

♦Will the information from monitoring this indicator provide results within a useful time frame? 

In reviewing assessments, it should be asked whether all questions and monitoring objectives are 
addressed by the list of indicators, or whether there are identified gaps or barriers. The compiled 
indicator list should be submitted for peer review. An outcome of this process will be a list of 
indicators that address the specific quantitative questions and identify the appropriate protocols. 

To be successful, the monitoring program will need to be objective driven; be founded on the best 
science available; operate at multiple scales; and have oversight of design, quality, control, and 
modification. This need requires agencies to make a major commitment to developing a process for 
coordinating their monitoring activities. Specific assignments and funding for carrying out these 
activities need to be identified. 

Step 3. Survey the Ongoing Monitoring Efforts 

This step consists of conducting an initial survey of the monitoring activities currently used by 
other agencies or groups within the project area to evaluate similar monitoring objectives and 
provide information about several aspects. This survey of existing projects should identify ongoing 
monitoring and provide for the identification of information gaps and barriers. Monitoring 
activities identified through this process will be potential candidates for incorporation into the 
interagency monitoring framework. 



Information requests can be designed and distributed to all the potential agency components and 
other parties that collect relevant environmental data. The most efficient approach would be to 
have an initial survey to identify the relevant activities, followed by collection of in-depth 
information on the appropriate ones. These surveys should include the individual monitoring 
program, objectives, questions, ecological resources, indicators and associated protocols, design, 
quality assurance information, costs, and historical data. 

After collecting information about existing monitoring, a detailed review and comparison of the 
developed information needs and existing monitoring should be conducted. Results from these 
activities will help to identify specific monitoring programs and requirements for information that 
is not available through existing programs. Collected information for each monitoring program can 
be summarized in a report containing the following general categories: 

♦ Program scope, objectives, and temporal and spatial resolution: 

♦ Program methodology and design; 

♦ Program documentation and reporting; 

♦ Program organization and coordination: 

♦ Program barriers, effectiveness, and weaknesses. 

Step 4. Establish Technical Details 

This step in the monitoring design process involves several elements: information or data quality 
objectives, indicators, statistical design, measurement and sampling protocols, and a quality 
assurance program. 

Indicators and protocols that currently exist need to be evaluated to determine their adequacy in 
meeting the objectives. Where possible, this evaluation should be based on a previous set of data 
collected using the protocols. This evaluation should look at the interaction among indicator 
variables, statistical power and precision of the data (information quality objectives), frequency and 
scale of sampling necessary, cost of sampling, and the overall ability of the data to answer the 
monitoring questions. A consensus standard or method of achieving comparable data should be 
developed where alternative protocols have been used in different programs. In addition to 
supporting these various evaluations, information derived through this step will also help in 
evaluating the cost effectiveness or feasibility of the monitoring effort. 

Although the general concepts of monitoring are broadly understood, application of the complex of 
natural resource monitoring protocols necessary to carry out the monitoring recommendations for 
any of the alternatives developed in the ICBEMP is complex. For example, there are many legal 
mandates for monitoring individual species across biologically complex areas. These mandates - 
coupled with considerations for management of habitats, plant communities, and ecosystems over 
a variety of spatial and temporal scales - require monitoring systems and approaches that may test 
and exceed the existing theory and technology for monitoring. 

Adequate indicators and protocols need to be developed in those cases where they do not exist. 
Development of appropriate protocols will require coordination with the research components 
within the overall effort. If research results indicate that specific methods are successful, a pilot 
study should then be planned to field-test the methods and evaluate the results. After evaluation 
of the pilot study, any necessary changes can be made in the protocols. If the protocol is 
determined to be suitable, then the type and level of training necessary for field staff to implement 
the methods should be determined. 

As technical monitoring groups identify the evaluation questions, there may be gaps and barriers 
found in existing research and monitoring technology. These gaps and barriers should be 
addressed by an interagency research and monitoring committee. This committee should identify 
research priorities for monitoring needs and determine the appropriate strategies for support of 
needed monitoring research. 






Some of the issues related to sufficiency of monitoring technology that may be considered in 
developing a comprehensive monitoring strategy are: 

♦ Efficiency; 

♦ Simplicity; 

♦ Sensitivity of monitoring measures relative to natural ranges of variation; 

♦ Indicator development and testing; 

♦ Development of new technology and adaptation of existing technology; 

♦ Changes needed to current laws and regulations to make more effective monitoring operations, 
data collection and analysis; 

♦ Development and effective transfer of sampling approaches, monitoring protocols and ideas on 
application where these elements do not exist; 

♦Adequate monetary support. 

Step 5. Repository for Data and Analysis 

The ICBEMP has created a large database that is expected to be used as baseline information in 
the evaluation process. That data could be stored at the Oregon/Washington BLM State Office and 
Forest Service Pacific Northwest Regional Office in Portland. Oregon. The data could be made 
available via a World Wide Web site (Internet) . Each agency's information resource management 
staff, in coordination with monitoring coordinators, could be responsible for the administration of 
their agency's portion of the data. 

The committee could develop a protocol for collection and storage of new regional level monitoring 
data. The comparability of data collected by all agencies is a crucial issue to be resolved by the 
committee. The protocol must be clear about how each agency's data contribute to the whole data 
set needed for evaluation of ecosystems at the regional level. Each agency would collect and maintain 
monitoring data according to the protocol developed by the committee and make it available upon 
request to other agencies for use in evaluation of ecosystem management. The monitoring 
coordinators and information resource management group would collect appropriate data from 
agency records, construct databases and manage the information for analysis or formal evaluation. 



Evaluation 

Evaluation is the next key component of the adaptive management process. It is the process by 
which a comprehensive, holistic review of the plan and monitoring data is developed. If the 
planning is completed, the plan is implemented, and monitoring data is gathered without the 
follow-up to judge the success of the plan, a high likelihood exists that problems will not be 
detected until a crisis develops. This portion of the adaptive approach focuses evaluation on the 
actions and outcomes where departures from expected conditions or results are treated not as 
failures but rather as new information to improve the quality of management. The results could 
be changes in mitigating measures, future actions, objectives, standards, guidelines, or some 
mixture of these. 

The evaluation process is used to determine whether or not ecosystem management objectives and 
standards in the project area are being met and remain appropriate. It is the process of gathering 
together all the data available from the monitoring process and using it to answer these questions: 

♦ Were the standards followed? 

♦ Were the goals and objectives met? 

♦ Were the standards effective at meeting the goals and objectives? 



fcMils :™ 



♦ Were the underlying management assumptions correct? 

♦ Have public expectations for ecosystem management changed? 

♦ Are the decisions still appropriate? 

The public has an important role in evaluation. Many critics of the BLM and Forest Service lack 
confidence in the agencies' abilities to implement adaptive management. Public involvement can 
ensure that the public's concerns are addressed in the evaluation process. 

The final stage of evaluation is to develop recommendations for changing current management, if 
needed, to meet ecosystem management goals. Adjustments should be related to implementation 
of management plans, management plan objectives, standards and guidelines, and monitoring data 
collection and integration. Recommendations should be used to modify land use plans, thus 
completing the adaptive management circle. 

Since knowledge is incomplete when decisions are made, adjustments need to be made through 
time. A continual feedback loop based on new information allows for mid-course corrections at 
time intervals appropriate to the systems, processes, and functions analyzed. An evaluation 
schedule needs to be set in advance to ensure that evaluations are conducted at intervals that 
allow for corrections in management direction before crises develop, that monitoring data is 
gathered in advance to be used in the evaluation process, and that the appropriate evaluation team 
is assembled to conduct the evaluation. 

Regional-level changes in ecosystems occur slowly over time. Management evaluations made too 
frequently will not detect changes in the ecosystem because cost-effective monitoring systems 
cannot detect them. On the other hand, if ecosystem management evaluations are not conducted, 
or are delayed for too long, irreversible changes may take place without detection. To avoid this 
problem, two periodic management evaluations are proposed. The first is an implementation 
evaluation to be conducted every five years, beginning five years after completing the ICBEMP, to 
see if the plans resulting from the project were implemented. The second is an effectiveness 
evaluation, to be conducted 10 years after completion of the project, to see if management practices 
are leading to achievement of ecosystem management goals and objectives. 

The five-year implementation evaluation could be conducted by BLM Districts and National 
Forests. Monitoring data would be evaluated and changes made to local actions where necessary to 
meet goals, objectives, standards of ecosystem management plans. BLM Districts and Forests 
within Resource Advisory Council or Provincial Advisory Communities boundaries should 
coordinate their evaluations and involve the Resource Advisory Councils or Provincial Advisory 
Communities (or other public advisory groups) in the evaluation process. This coordination 
ensures that project area ecosystem management implementation issues are considered at the 
broader level while incorporating public participation. The general public and American Indian 
tribes also need to be involved in the evaluation. 

A 10-year project area ecosystem management effectiveness evaluation could be conducted by an 
interagency evaluation team. The regional executives would form the monitoring team. It would 
evaluate ecosystem management plans and monitoring information with involvement of the public 
and develop findings and recommendations to the participating agencies on: 1) whether or not the 
management was effective in meeting goals and objectives; 2) whether or not the assumptions and 
models used in developing the plan were correct and are still valid or need to be changed; and 3) 
what changes are needed in mitigation measures, future actions, objectives, standards and 
guidelines to meet ecosystem management goals. 

Funding 

The majority of the funds and personnel necessary to conduct the monitoring, data management, 
and evaluation activities for the implementation of ecosystem management in the project area are 
expected to remain within the Federal land management agencies. However, the expertise needed 






to develop and refine scientifically credible monitoring approaches is expected to reside with 
individuals who are often located elsewhere (such as Forest Service Experiment Stations, National 
Biological Survey, State agencies, university researchers, and tribes). 

Traditionally, funds have been allocated for the planning and implementation phases of the 
adaptive management process while monitoring and evaluation have been given minimal attention. 
Resources must be allocated and priorities established so that all parts of adaptive management 
are completed over an appropriate time frame and so that no individual part receives emphasis at 
the expense of another. 

Costs relative to monitoring are associated with the agency monitoring coordinators and the 
interagency monitoring committee, information gathering, and data management. The Regional 
Executives would set priorities, the committee would develop the protocols, and the agencies would 
implement them. Because funds for ecosystem management are limited, monitoring and 
evaluation activities have to be carefully planned so that only critical information needed for 
evaluation is gathered. 

Challenges to Implementation 

Because of the diversity of resources, conditions, communities, and concerns throughout the 
planning area, challenges to successful implementation are expected to arise. This section 
summarizes some of these that have been compiled from an informal survey of BLM, Forest 
Service, and other agency employees; from challenges discussed in interdisciplinary and public 
meetings; from public and other comments received during the course of the project; and from an 
ICBEMP science contract report concerning barriers to ecosystem management. 



Funding 



Budget challenges come in three different ways: budget structure in which Congress determines 
the amount of money appropriated, and how it will be spent; the budget amount and composition 
of funds; and shrinking trust funds that have historically been generated by such things as the 
sale of timber. 

The actual budget amount and associated flexibilities in how money can be invested in ecosystem 
management may be the largest of the budget challenges. Concern over the Federal budget deficit 
has constrained the amounts that the administration can request, and that Congress can 
appropriate. Other options need to be explored. Chapter 1 of this Draft EIS states that if full 
funding is not available, then the rate of implementation will be reduced appropriately. However, 
standards will be met at any funding level. Many management activities (including restoration) 
rely on agency ability to conduct Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. In lieu of conducting 
this local analysis, all alternatives but Alternative 1 provide interim standards for such items as 
protecting riparian and aquatic resources and retention of snags and coarse woody debris. 

Funding concerns discussed here are focused on implementation of expectations from this Draft 
EIS. They do not necessarily include the many other aspects of responsibilities and programs 
conducted by the BLM or Forest Service. Both the Forest Service and BLM have some flexibilities 
and authorities to reprioritize programs and the funding support to those programs. The 
authorities differ by agency, but the agencies recognize the need to work within these flexibilities in 
order to better respond to implementation. The agencies will need to evaluate the mixes of monies 
and flexibilities for using available funding to assure that goals and objectives of the selected 
alternative are met over the 10-year planning period. 



Funding reductions sometime result in organizational restructuring which can present challenges 
in retaining the appropriate staff for implementing an integrated program. In addition, many 
employees move frequently within their careers. On the one hand, this creates new ideas and 
innovation; on the other hand, local relationships are interrupted, and local knowledge of how 
ecosystems respond to treatments often is lost. 



Monitoring 

Monitoring has been a challenge in the past. Often there has been more emphasis and energy in 
putting forth new projects than in conducting monitoring and evaluation activities. The action 
alternatives (Alternatives 3 through 7) have objectives and standards (AM-02, AM-S3 through 7) 
that prescribe ways of approaching monitoring to meet this concern, as well as tying monitoring to 
decisions made during implementation. This will require that agencies reexamine how projects are 
funded and the rate of implementation, as monitoring will become an essential part of 
implementation . 

Concerns have arisen about the effectiveness of restoration activities. In several alternatives, 
restoration is a primary feature. Restoration includes a great number of activities that address 
most of the components of ecosystems, including vegetation, disturbance, aquatic /riparian 
resources, and human needs associated with Forest Service and BLM management. The success 
of meeting many objectives in Alternatives 3 through 7 relies on agency abilities to conduct an 
integrated restoration program and to ensure that activities are successful in meeting objectives. 
With the tremendous variety and diversity of conditions within the project area, it is not realistic to 
think that activities appropriate in one area will necessarily work in others. This Draft EIS 
outlines restoration expectations at the broad-scale, and recognizes that implementation will occur 
at the fine or local level. Since successful implementation of any alternative is based on how 
effective implementation activities are conducted, the BLM and Forest Service expect to review 
restoration actions and programs through the monitoring and evaluation process, and to work 
within existing authorities to apply appropriate adaptive management techniques to respond to the 
results. The agencies also recognize that there is much variation in when results may be 
effectively evaluated. For example, replacing a culvert that impedes fish migration can show 
immediate results; determining trends on rangelands, or altering patterns and structure of forest 
landscapes, may take decades to evaluate the effectiveness of change. Long-term as well as 
short-term monitoring strategies are necessary, and collaborative approaches with tribes, other 
agencies, Resource Advisory Councils, Provincial Advisory Communities, the public, and other 
governments will be necessary. 

Many people who have been involved with this project have indicated a concern about traditional 
approaches not providing a reasonable degree of consistency in how programs are implemented 
among administrative units. Others are concerned that decisions resulting from the ROD(s) may 
not be applied consistently. The ICBEMP was initiated to deal with the first concern for certain 
broad-scale issues. The second concern should be addressed through monitoring and evaluation. 

Due to the diversity of conditions, resources, and issues throughout the project area, some degree 
of variation is expected, however the goals, objectives, and standards should be met. 



Existing Laws 



The BLM and Forest Service are authorized and bound by many existing laws and treaties, and are 
tied closely to budget allocations, agency priorities, and congressional expectations. Agency 
activities must be conducted within this context. Many of these laws have been developed over 
time to respond to issues of the time. Sometimes these laws have competing requirements. Often 
agency staffs spend considerable energy in assuring that the intent of existing laws, regulations, 
and policies are met. Many of these are simple and straightforward; others are more complex. For 



■-■■-■■■■-:"■■■■■■ :'":'■':'.".'■ :: '::-;:■ !'-:'-:-:-: : --:- :-■■■■-:-■-:-.;: :$$$$$ 

f:T:t::;:: : ; : :f; : '-; :: S-:-^. : '- 



instance, under existing mineral leasing laws, the agencies retain ultimate discretion whether or 
not to lease or which stipulations to attach, including no surface occupancy for leasable mineral 
resources such as oil, gas, geothermal and coal. Agencies can decide whether or not to sell 
common mineral resources such as gravel. Locatable minerals (such as gold and other metallic 
metals) are different because of the 1872 Mining Act, and agencies work with operators through 
notices and plans of operation to minimize adverse effects. Through these processes, agencies 
may, for example, comply with the mining law while meeting the intent of aquatic conservation 
strategies, or the Endangered Species Act. 

Understanding Ecosystem Management 

The challenge most frequently cited by respondents to the study prepared by Schlager and 
Friemund (1994) for the Social Science Staff of the Science Integration Team was the confusion 
surrounding the meaning of ecosystem management. Multiple definitions and interpretations have 
the potential to define ecosystem management so broadly that it becomes meaningless. The 
ambiguity causes many members of the public to be suspicious, and it can create unclear 
expectations by both the public and many agency employees. Many people have asked if humans 
are part of the ecosystem and are part of the goals for ecosystem management. This Draft EIS and 
associated supporting science documents include people and their needs as part of any successful 
ecosystem management strategy on these public lands. A related concern is that ecosystem 
management is an internal agency policy shift, and not one specifically based on new legislative 
direction. Ecosystem management is being implemented by the Forest Service and BLM in 
response to existing laws, changing public values, and new information/understandings. It will 
need to be well defined, with associated clear goals and expectations in order to be able to achieve 
successful implementation. The intent of this project and Draft EIS is to explain the concepts of 
ecosystem management and how these concepts would apply to management activities and 
expected outcomes on lands managed by the BLM or Forest Service. By doing this and by refining 
this implementation plan, many of the ambiguities about the term ecosystem management can be 
better addressed. 

Agency Accountability and Credibility 

Through the course of the ICBEMP, it has become clear that there is mistrust in the ability of the 
Forest Service and BLM to do what is specified in plans, policies, and programs. This results in 
frustrations on the part of some who rely on goods and services expected from these public lands. 
In addition, frustrations occur from those concerned about agency abilities to provide protection to 
such resources as threatened and endangered species or species of concern to tribes. Others are 
unclear about expectations and how programs will be implemented, and they ask for further clarity 
or stronger sideboards for management actions. There are two facets to this concern: (1) some 
events or processes such as appropriations, or the results of litigation are outside the control or the 
authorities of the agencies; (2) priorities may not be clearly communicated, accountability may not 
be clearly assessed, or organizational challenges may inhibit progress toward meeting goals. The 
latter are within the control of the agencies. Through discussions with many of the people associated 
with the project both internally and externally, there is a clearly expressed need to assure agency 
priorities and direction are clear and staffs are accountable for meeting these needs. This may be 
further addressed by the desire of many to expand the role of tribes, the public, and other 
agencies and governments in participating in agency planning, implementation, and monitoring 
activities such that problems are identified early and adjustments are made as necessaiy. 



Tribal Concerns 

In many areas, there is a lack of trust between tribes and the agencies. The Federal Government is 
reluctant to define the Federal trust responsibility beyond that which can be supported by case 
law. In some units, there is still a lack of understanding or awareness of the tribal interests in 
Federal land management as a result of treaties, executive orders, or other agency policies. This 
can create adversarial relationships, rather than partnerships. The involvement and participation 
by affected tribes take time, people, and money for both tribes and agencies often in excess of 
desired level's. Government-to-government consultation is necessary and is different for most 
tribes. Expectations for tribes and agencies often are different, frequently resulting in mistrust or 
differing determinations of success. 

Perceived Threat to Private Interests 

Ecosystem management conjures fears in some of increased direct or indirect governmental 
regulation or control of private landowner management practices or rights. With many rural 
communities within the planning area undergoing challenges or changes to their local economies, 
many people are understandably anxious about the future. Although the Forest Service and BLM 
have no authority, intent, or desire to make decisions or implement programs outside agency 
boundaries, this concern remains. In addition, there is a clear understanding that programs 
administered by the Forest Service and BLM can have effects on local communities, especially in 
more rural areas. 

Ability to Implement Adaptive Management 

Although there is widespread support for adaptive management as a principle and a process, 
sometimes agency operating regulations pose challenges. For instance, if through monitoring and 
evaluation a need is identified to alter a local land use plan standard, or change a management 
allocation, a plan amendment often is needed. Depending on the significance of the amendment, 
the actual process may take substantial time and be subject to rigorous planning steps. Sometimes 
this discourages agencies faced with declining budgets and staffs to accomplish the needed changes. 



Reference List 



Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T.; and Quigley, T.M. 1996. Framework for ecosystem management in 
the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Portland, OR: U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Quigley, T.M.; Arbeldibe, S.J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the 
interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Portland, OR: U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 2 vols. 

Regional Interagency Executive Committee and Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. 1995. 
Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale: Federal guide for watershed analysis. Version 2.2. 
Portland, OR. 26pp. 

Schlager, D.B.; Freimund, W.A. 1994. Institutional and legal barriers to ecosystem management. 
Walla Walla, Washington: Research report submitted to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project. 



... . 



'TSSSS 



Appendix 3-2 
Guidelines 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix H) 




Contents 

Implementing Ecosystem Management 246 

Physical Environment 246 

Terrestrial Strategies 247 

Forested Lands 253 

Rangelands 259 

Aquatic/ Riparian Strategies 263 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species and Habitats 267 

Human Uses and Values 270 

Tribal Interests 278 

Road Management 279 

Adaptive Management and Monitoring 280 




■::■:■:::::■ , . : ■ . '. .::: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■.;■.. ■ ■ ■■■■■■ 



Implementing Ecosystem Management 

Sub-basin Reviews: Guidelines For Objective EM-03 

EM-Gl. Guideline: Sub-basin analysis could assist in characterizing sub-basins within the 
context of the cluster and ERU, and set the context for first step in Ecosystem Analysis at the 
watershed scale. 

EM-G2. Guideline: When conducting sub-basin reviews, consider using local information to 
verify strong population and sub-basin category designations. In addition, consider identifying 
and protecting or restoring at-risk fish population and habitats such as depressed populations in 
fringe distributions and watersheds that sustain wild and naturally reproducing fishes. 

EM-G3. Guideline: The appropriate scales to be considered for this analysis are river basins 
(groups of 4th-field HUCs) or sub-basins (4th-field HUCs). Consider coordinating the analysis 
across Forest Service- or BLM-administrative boundaries. 



Ecosystem Management at the Watershed Scale: 
Guidelines For Objective EM-04 

EM-G4. Guideline: As part of the ecosystem analysis process, consider identifying areas where 
fuels pose a risk to life and property, or natural resources, and their treatment can be integrated 
into ecosystem restoration plans. 

Physical Environment 

Soil Productivity: Guidelines For Objectives PE-Ol 
through PE-04 

PE-Gl. Guideline: When conducting soil-disturbing activities, consider methods that will maintain 
long-term soil and vegetation productivity. 

PE-G2. Guideline: Consider developing biomass distribution recommendations for vaiying 
vegetation types and geoclimatic environments to provide nutrient supplies that are sustainable 
spatially and temporally. 

PE-G3. Guideline: Consider having coarse woody debris in variable size classes with at least half 
of the tonnage in 15-inch and greater diameter class, uniformly distributed throughout the area. 

PE-G4. Guideline: Consider evaluating and updating the standards and guidelines outlined in the 
handbooks; update, where needed, based on soil monitoring, recent research, and local biophysical 
conditions. 

PE-G5. Guideline: Consider decreasing nitrogen volatilization losses by using low intensity 
prescribed burning. Allow decomposition to occur for a minimum of one to two years between 
burns in moist, warm habitat types. 



PE-G6. Guideline: Consider developing recommendations for vegetation densities, composition, 
and structure, and quantities of standing and downed moderate and large wood within riparian 
areas to buffer streams from pollutants and regulate nutrient availability and sustainability. 

Air Quality: Guidelines For Objective PE05 

PE-G7. Guideline: Environmental analysis performed for proposed prescribed fire activities can 
include the following key points: (1) Assess the need for burning compared to alternate fuel reduction 
methods such as scarification or piling and yarding unmerchantable material; (2) Quantify the 
amount and types of material and acreage to be bumed; (3) Describe the type of burn proposed (for 
example, broadcast, pile, understory); (4) Quantify emissions of air pollutants; (5) Describe mitigation 
measures to reduce emissions; (6) Describe applicable regulatory, permit, and smoke management 
requirements; (7) Describe and quantify air quality impacts on downwind communities and discuss 
visibility impacts in Class 1 areas. This analysis could include modeling where appropriate models 
exists. (8) Describe the existing monitoring network. If needed, develop a plan to revise or expand 
monitoring to ensure that effects of prescribed burning on air quality are measured. 

PE-G8. Guideline: Consider active participation with appropriate state agencies to develop 
visibility standards for Class 1 areas that consider the need to restore fire as a natural process in 
forest and range ecosystems. 

Terrestrial Strategies 

Fire Disturbance Processes: Guidelines For 
Objectives TS-02 and TS-03 

TS-Gl. Guideline: Management- ignited prescribed fire plans that restore the natural process of 
fire disturbance can be developed for Wilderness Areas where prescribed natural fire is not 
appropriate. Reasons prescribed fire may not be appropriate include: topographic features, physical 
size, orientation to the direction of fire spread, or a demonstrated risk of escape potential exceeding 
social-political considerations. 

TS-G2. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 7 only): Within reserves, consider using liberal prescribed 
natural fire prescriptions in order to allow nature to take its course, except where necessary to 
confine fire within reserve boundaries or where other resource objectives override. 

TS-G3. Guideline: Outside reserves, fire prescriptions may be fairly conservative until vegetative 
mosaics, fuel loading, and continuity have been modified enough that a more liberal fire 
prescription is possible. 

TS-G4. Guideline: Consider using scientific methods (such as computer or mathematical models) 
to compare and document relative risks among various management strategies aimed at reducing 
threats from catastrophic fire. Such tools maybe used to compare the consequences of liberal 
versus conservative management actions. 

TS-G5. Guideline: Consider prescribed natural fire as a means of managing extensive areas of 
insect- and/or disease-infested forests that have already lost their salvage value or are otherwise 
uneconomical to treat. 

TS-G6. Guideline: To the extent that fuel amounts, arrangement, and management objectives 
allow, conduct management-ignited prescribed fire activities at frequencies and intensities similar 
to the natural fire regime appropriate to the site. 



■ . '■"'"' "•' :: ... "■" ' ' .'.' • .'"• : .:.■.... " 

■ : ■■ . . -...:.. • ':■ -^^. :... : . ::: : :: : : :. : ;:::j;:vv::::,;::.: ..;■;;■■ y 1 ■■ ..:.:.:.:::.;;■;'■:.;.. : . ■ ■ - —>:.' : ; : 

TS-G7. Guideline: As additional acres are restored to conditions that are more resilient to wildland 
fire, consider expanding those areas whose prescribed fire plans already include prescribed natural 
fire, and consider adding prescribed natural fire to other existing prescribed fire plans. 

TS-G8. Guideline: Consider managing fuels around existing structures on Forest Service and BLM 
lands. 

TS-G9. Guideline: When siting and constructing new federal facilities in wildland areas, give 
consideration to wildland fire; consider refurbishing old facilities with fire-resistant materials as 
maintenance is required. 

TS-G10. Guideline: Consider conducting an inventory of public and privately owned structures on 
Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands and inholdings, and adjacent private lands in 
cooperation with owners, to determine which structures require protection from wildland fire. 
Agreements regarding appropriate levels of protection may be signed with property owners. 

TS-G11. Guideline: Consider coordinating wildfire management planning with prescribed fire 
plans and activities to optimize the efforts of each fire management component. 

TS-G12. Guideline: In dry forest types with a small potential shrub component, consider thinning 
of regeneration before the volume of thinning slash becomes a fire hazard. Additional treatment of 
thinning slash may be necessary. 

TS-G13. Guideline: When restocking a forested site, consider the desired final stand density when 
determining planting densities. 

TS-G14. Guideline: Consider landscape level treatments to create a network of areas with reduced 
crownfire potential. 

TS-G15. Guideline: Consider removing ladder fuels and reducing stand density to a level at which 
a fire is unlikely to spread in the tree canopy. 

TS-G16. Guideline: When managing vegetation to accommodate low intensity/ high frequency fire 
regimes, consider establishing priorities for prescribed burning within three years. Place a high 
priority on areas of urban/wildland interfaces where issues of wildfire protection predominate. 

TS-G17. Guideline: Consider identifying a combination of treatments that reduces risk of 
catastrophic wildfires while minimizing short- and long-term impacts to aquatic and riparian systems. 

TS-G18. Guideline: Consider using thinning or other treatment methods rather than fire to increase 
structural diversity in mountain mahogany communities without changing overall distribution. This 
will create early and mid-seral stands and open shrub structure, which has declined. 

TS-G19. Guideline: To control spread of wind erosion and annual exotics in areas of fine soils, 
consider minimizing the acres burned due to wildfire by using one or more of the following 
methods: (1) fuel breaks of less flammable vegetation; and (2) greenstripping, particularly near 
areas with a history of high levels of wildfire ignitions. During pre-suppression planning for fire 
suppression organization needs (that is, National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS)), 
consider these areas as high priority to minimize acreage burned and plan for suppression 
organizations to make this successful. 

TS-G20. Guideline: Consider developing spring burning prescriptions to reduce exotic or annual 
species during their critical growth stage, and to help prepare sites for rehabilitation with native or 
desirable exotic plants. 

TS-G21. Guideline: Consider developing pre-suppression fire plans to reduce the amount of 
cheatgrass dominated sites burned by wildfire. 



TS-G22. Guideline: Consider conducting assessments of potential postfire resprouting, reseeding, 
and survival of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs in order to determine if postfire seeding is necessary. 

TS-G23. Guideline: Consider leaving residual patches of untreated shrubs to provide a seed 
source for establishment of a young shrub stand. 

TS-G24. Guideline: Consider the effects of prescribed burning on habitat patch size and 
fragmentation. 

Noxious Weeds: Guidelines for Objectives TS-04 
and TS-05 

TS-G25. Guideline: Consider the effectiveness of control efforts (physical, biological, pesticides) 
to determine the best method for control of noxious weeds while maintaining ecosystem values. 
Where feasible and practicable, consider using non-chemical type control efforts such as hand 
pulling, biological control, and seeding. 

TS-G26. Guideline: Consider implementing local weed control educational and coordination 
efforts with all interested regional, state, and local entities including private landowners, schools, 
road crews, public land users, and suppliers of sand, gravel, hay, seed, and nurseries. 

TS-G27. Guideline: Consider quarantine or closure of some areas to control the spread of noxious 
weeds to adjacent areas. 

TS-G28. Guideline: Where possible, consider prioritizing weed management as follows: 

♦ Prevent invasion of new invaders by limiting weed seed dispersal, minimizing soil disturbance, 
and properly managing desirable vegetation. 

♦ Detect and eradicate new invaders 

♦ Target roadways, water courses, along trails and railways, and in campgrounds for a constant 
prevention and containment program. 

♦ Emphasize control of large-scale infestations (limiting the spread of noxious weeds and 
reducing the infestation level): Focus initial efforts on small, manageable units with an 
understory of residual plants, and then focus on the remaining infestation. Start with the 
outside and work toward the center of the infestation. 

♦ Consider using native, locally adapted species for rehabilitating weed infested lands and bare ground. 

TS-G29. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Consider establishing experimental areas to 
test methods of weed control, such as biological, mechanical, and chemical means. 

TS-G30. Guideline: Consider targeting noxious weeds that are particularly problematic in Range 
Cluster 2, and noxious weeds that are relatively new invaders to the planning area and could be 
problematic in the future, including but not limited to the following: diffuse knapweed, whitetop, 
Scotch thistle, and yellow starthistle. 

TS-G31. Guideline: Consider targeting noxious weeds that are particularly problematic in Range 
Cluster 3, and noxious weeds that are relatively new invaders to the planning area and could be 
problematic in the future, including but not limited to the following: diffuse knapweed, orange and 
yellow hawkweeds, yellow starthistle. medusahead, whitetop, and Scotch thistle. 

TS-G32. Guideline: Consider targeting noxious weeds that are particularly problematic in Range 
Clusters 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and noxious weeds that are relatively new invaders to the planning area 
and could be problematic in the future, including but not limited to the following: diffuse 



knapweed, medusahead, yellow starthistle, rush skeletonweed, Mediterranean sage, orange and 
yellow hawkweed, whitetop, and Scotch thistle. 

TS-G33. Guideline: Consider targeting noxious weeds that are particularly problematic in Range 
Clusters 1, 4, and 6, and noxious weeds that are relatively new invaders to the planning area and 
could be problematic in the future, including but not limited to the following: diffuse knapweed, 
medusahead, yellow starthistle, rush skeletonweed. and Mediterranean sage. 

TS-G34. Guideline: Consider targeting noxious weeds that are particularly problematic in Range 
Cluster 5, and noxious weeds that are relatively new invaders to the planning area and could be 
problematic in the future, including but not limited to the following: diffuse knapweed, yellow 
starthistle, medusahead, and halogeton. 

TS-G35. Guideline: Consider targeting noxious weeds that are particularly problematic in Range 
Clusters 2 and 4, and noxious weeds that are relatively new invaders to the planning area and 
could be problematic in the future, including but not limited to the following: diffuse knapweed, 
whitetop, Scotch thistle, and yellow starthistle. 

TS-G36. Guideline: Consider targeting noxious weeds that are particularly problematic in Range 
Clusters 2,3, and 5, and noxious weeds that are relatively new invaders to the planning area and 
could be problematic in the future, including but not limited to the following: diffuse knapweed, 
whitetop, Scotch thistle, yellow starthistle, medusahead, halogeton, and orange and yellow hawkweed. 

TS-G37. Guideline: Consider targeting noxious weeds that are particularly problematic in Range 
Clusters 1 and 6, and noxious weeds that are relatively new invaders to the planning area and 
could be problematic in the future, including but not limited to the following: diffuse knapweed, 
medusahead, yellow starthistle, rush skeletonweed, and Mediterranean sage. 

TS-G38. Guideline: Consider targeting noxious weeds that are particularly problematic in Range 
Clusters 1 through 6, and noxious weeds that are relatively new invaders to the planning area and 
could be problematic in the future, including but not limited to the following: diffuse knapweed, 
whitetop, Scotch thistle, yellow starthistle, orange and yellow hawkweeds, medusahead, halogeton, 
rush skeletonweed, and Mediterranean sage. 

TS-G39. Guideline: Consider preventing the spread of noxious weeds into areas that are 
susceptible to invasion. Areas that are susceptible to invasion include roadways, railways, 
waterways, and other high disturbance areas, and rangeland vegetation cover types that are of 
high or moderate susceptibility to invasion. See Appendix 2-2 for a table that portrays the 
rangeland cover types in the project area and their susceptibility to invasion by noxious weeds. 

TS-G40. Guideline: Consider developing an inventory system for noxious weeds that will result in 
accumulation of information on the following items: (1) locations of infestations; (2) acreage 
infested; (3) number or density of plants; (4) general plant community infested; (5) environmental 
conditions, such as soil conditions and level of disturbance; and (6) current land use activities. 

TS-G41. Guideline: Consider automated data bases for the storage and retrieval of information on 
noxious weeds. Ensure that these data bases are integrated with Geographic Information Systems. 

TS-G42. Guideline: Consider developing education and awareness programs that permit visitors 
and users of federal lands to assist federal land managers in locating noxious weed invaders and 
preventing noxious weed invasions. 

TS-G43. Guideline: Consider developing and enforcing policies designed to ensure seed and seed 
mixtures, hays, grains, and straws are free of noxious weed seed. 

TS-G44. Guideline: Consider developing cooperative weed prevention programs with suppliers of 
sand, gravel, top soil, seed, hay, straw, ornamental plants, and any other materials that may 
transport seed and other reproductive plant parts of noxious weeds. 



TS-G45. Guideline: Consider training federal agency employees at all levels. Training would be 
focused on the following topics: identification of noxious weeds currently present and potentially 
invasive to the area; noxious weed dispersal agents: vegetation communities in the area and their 
susceptibilities to various noxious weeds (see Appendix 2-2) for a table that shows rangeland 
vegetation types in the project area and their susceptibilities to invasion by selected noxious 
weeds); actions to take when new infestations are encountered; and actions that employees can 
take to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. 

TS-G46. Guideline: Consider developing control strategies targeted and tailored to specific 
noxious weeds. Consider combining cultural, physical, biological, and chemical methods into a 
control strategy. See Appendix 2-2 for a more detailed list of cultural, physical, biological, and 
chemical control guidelines. 

TS-G47. Guideline: Consider noxious weed management in planning documents. 

TS-G48. Guideline: To prevent spread of weeds along roads, consider weed risk factors - such as 
presence of weeds, vegetation community type, aspect, and shading - in the planning associated 
with road location and design. 

TS-G49. Guideline: To prevent spread of weeds along roads by vehicles, consider the following: (a) 
Before construction equipment moves into a relatively weed-free area at moderate or high 
susceptibility to invasion, mow, grade, or otherwise treat all seed-bearing noxious weed plants on 
the travelway of existing roads. Treated areas should then be reseeded. (b) Clean off-road 
equipment of all soil and plant parts, using power or high-pressure cleaning, before moving the 
equipment into relatively weed-free areas that are at moderate to high susceptibility to invasion. 

TS-G50. Guideline: Because weeds are not adapted well to shade, consider retaining shade along 
roads by minimizing removal of trees and other roadside vegetation during construction, 
reconstruction, and maintenance, particularly on south aspects. 

TS-G51. Guideline: To prevent spread of weeds along roads, consider reestablishing vegetation on 
all bare ground. For all construction, reconstruction, and maintenance activities, seed all 
disturbed soil (except the traveled portion) within seven days of work completion at each site, 
unless ongoing disturbance at the site will prevent weed establishment. In that case, seeding 
should be performed within seven days of final disturbance. Use a seed mix that includes fast, 
early growing species to provide quick, dense revegetation. Seed should be certified weed-free 
before purchase to ensure minimum weed content. Consider these options: (a) fertilizing at the 
same time as seed application and again later; (b) applying weed-free mulch with seeding; and (c) 
double-seeding, full rate at initial ground disturbance and full-rate again at the end of the project. 

TS-G52. Guideline: To minimize weed spread caused by moving infested gravel and fill material to 
relatively weed-free locations, consider using gravel and fill that comes from weed-free sources, 
especially where this gravel and fill is to be placed in relatively weed-free areas that are at moderate 
to high susceptibility to invasion. Inspect gravel pits and fill sources to identify weed-free sources. 

TS-G53. Guideline: To minimize sources of weed seed in areas not yet revegetated, consider 
closing active road construction sites to vehicles that are not involved with construction, where the 
construction sites are located in relatively weed-free areas that are at moderate to high 
susceptibility to invasion. 

TS-G54. Guideline: To minimize roadside sources of weed seed that could be transported to other 
areas, consider monitoring for noxious weeds in road maintenance programs. Weed infestations 
should be inventoried and scheduled for treatment. Where applicable, consider developing timber 
sale clauses and specifications to collect deposits for use in weed-control road maintenance. 






iy~&'. ; v'. - .. .:.'. ; :;;..:.;.^^^^ ' ■■ ■ ''- ■■■■'■■'■'■:™;S;,"";;:":;::::.".::r:K;:"; : 

TS-G55. Guideline: Consider weed risk and spread factors in road closure decision-making. The 
decisions made in regard to selection of roads for closure should include these factors: length of 
time it takes for native vegetation to reestablish, vicinity of seed source, the likelihood that the 
roads will spread weeds. 

TS-G56. Guideline: To minimize transport of weed seed by pack and saddle stock: (a) require that 
all pack and saddle stock in designated areas use only certified weed-free feed and straw bedding. 
Where applicable in wilderness, this technique should be deferred to the Limits of Acceptable 
Change planning process. Encourage the use of weed-free feed in all areas. Visitors to National 
Forest lands are now required to use certified noxious-weed-free hay, straw, or mulch in Idaho and 
Montana]; (b) consider requiring pack and saddle stock to be quarantined and fed only weed-free 
feed for 24 hours before traveling off roads. Before quarantine, tail and mane should be brushed 
out to remove any weed seed. 

TS-G57. Guideline: To encourage a weed-free trail user's ethic, consider placing signs at 
trailheads that include information on weed prevention techniques and weed awareness. 

TS-G58. Guideline: Consider requesting hikers, campers, and other recreationists who are 
recreating in weed-infested areas to brush and clean themselves and their equipment before they 
move to weed-free areas. 

TS-G59. Guideline: To ensure that all bare ground is covered by desirable vegetation that will help 
prevent weed establishment, consider seeding archeological site excavations. 

TS-G60. Guideline: To incorporate weed prevention into design of wildlife habitat improvement 
projects, consider weed risks in environmental analysis for habitat improvement projects (such as 
prescribed fire). 

TS-G61. Guideline: To minimize the creation of bare soil and other factors that enhance weeds, (a) 
consider management that prevents excessive soil disturbance at salt licks, watering sites, and at 
sites characterized by sensitive soil conditions; and (b) consider placing salt in containers and 
moving salt periodically. 

TS-G62. Guideline: To minimize transport of weed seed to relatively weed-free areas that are at 
moderate to high susceptibility of invasion, consider controlling the timing of livestock movement 
from infested to noninfested areas, especially in range allotments that have both weed-infested and 
relatively weed-free areas that are at moderate to high susceptibility of invasion. Consider 
permitting livestock to graze weed-infested areas only when weeds are not flowering or producing 
seeds, or, if livestock are grazing weed-infested areas, consider moving them to a holding area for 
about 14 days before moving them to weed-free areas. 

TS-G63. Guideline: To ensure that fire suppression and rehabilitation efforts minimize weed 
spread, consider reseeding all disturbed soil in relatively weed-free areas that are at moderate to 
high susceptibility of invasion. 

TS-G64. Guideline: Consider contract clauses that ensure that only tested and certified noxious- 
weed-free mixtures are used to revegetate and reclaim disturbed sites. 

TS-G65. Guideline: To ensure establishment and maintenance of vigorous, desirable vegetation 
that discourages weeds, consider monitoring all seeded sites. Fertilize and spot reseed as needed. 
Preference for seeding should be given to native, "pioneer" (early serai) species that are typically 
low in nutrient demands. This minimizes the need for fertilization. Road maintenance programs 
should include scheduled fertilization where needed (three-year period is suggested). 

TS-G66. Guideline: To ensure success of revegetation efforts that will minimize weed spread, 
consider permitting livestock grazing of reseeded sites after vegetation is well established. 



Forested Lands 

Dry Forest (only): Guidelines For Objective TS-06 

TS-G67. Guideline: Where possible, consider converting late-seral multi-layered forested 
ecosystems to single-layered systems dominated by shade-intolerant tree species to move toward 
desired single-layered and multi-layered late-seral structural conditions consistent with 
biophysical environments and disturbance regimes. It may be necessary to change existing 
standards for big game cover. 

TS-G68. Guideline: To promote development of late-seral single layer ponderosa pine, consider 
using thinning, harvesting, and/or prescribed fire on existing mid-seral forest structural stages. 
Stand structural condition, composition, stand density, fuel loading and arrangement, and litter 
and duff depth may be matched to the desired fire regime. The success of sustaining 
shade-intolerant tree species will depend on recurring disturbance. Ecosystem Analysis can be 
used to determine structures appropriate for local predicted fire regimes. 

Moist Forest (only): Guidelines For Objective TS-08 

TS-G69. Guideline: Consider accelerating development of up to 20 percent canopy cover of 
residual large trees of western larch and ponderosa pine. 

TS-G70. Guideline: For fire-adapted species such as western white pine, western larch, or 
lodgepole pine, consider using thinning, harvesting, and/or prescribed fire to maintain stand 
densities that mimic those following stand-replacing fire under desired future fire regimes and to 
maintain these species as the dominant overstory consistent with biophysical environments. 

TS-G71. Guideline: To restore dominance of western white pine where fire regimes would have 
encouraged their dominance, or to increase the overall abundance, diversity, and distribution of 
western white pine, consider a variety of techniques such as: 

♦ selecting and testing new candidate rust-resistant trees, and judiciously using lower levels of 
rust-resistance; 

♦ reducing mortality of infected pine through intermediate treatments such as pruning and 
canker excision; 

♦ minimizing selection pressure on the fungus by conservative use of highly rust-resistant 
pine stock; 

♦ monitoring for new races of rust; 

♦ reducing competition and promoting more open stands which are less conducive to rust and 
spread; and 

♦ protecting existing stands. 

TS-G72. Guideline: To restore diversity of size and age structures in lodgepole pine and reduce 
susceptibility to mountain pine beetle infestation, consider using thinning, harvesting, and/or 
prescribed fire to maintain appropriate stand densities. 

TS-G73. Guideline: Consider using non-surface-disturbing treatments (for example, minimize 
mechanical treatments) to minimize the incidence of root rot on sites where soils are highly disturbed. 

TS-G74. Guideline: Consider removing ladder fuels and reducing stand density to a level at. 
which a fire cannot spread in the tree canopy on sites dominated by ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, 
and/or western larch, consistent with biophysical environments. 



■■■:■.:■:■:■:;■'"■"■"■:■:■:■:■::■"'■:"■"■■'"■':■:■:■'"■";■""■"■■".'■:"■' ■::■: -::r: -"■"■::■: :^:^ :■::■:■:■: :■::■:::,:■: ;■::::■■: ■..:■:.:■:;■:■:■ ■:.■:■■■::■:.■:■ 






TS-G75. Guideline: In Forest Cluster 4, consider increasing the amount of secure habitat that is 
presently available by increasing the amount of small openings, canopy gaps, or open forests 
where possible. Rationale: The extensive road access in Forest Cluster 4 has reduced the amount 
of secure habitat available. The homogenization of forest structures has negatively affected suitable 
habitat for species requiring small openings, canopy gaps, or open forests. Homogenization has also 
negatively affected the persistence of terrestrial vertebrates which rely heavily on late and early 
serai structures. 

TS-G76. Guideline: Consider improving levels of connectivity with habitats in Canada to allow 
emigration of large forest carnivores to habitats in the United States. 

Cold Forest (only): Guidelines For Objective TS-Ol 

TS-G77. Guideline: Consider using low intensity prescribed fires every 25 to 50 years, or at 
an interval considered appropriate for local conditions, to reduce fuel accumulations and 
understory density. 

TS-G78. Guideline: To reduce Douglas-fir susceptibility to dwarf mistletoe and western spruce 
budworm, consider minimizing canopy layers and reducing density through thinning, harvesting, 
and/or prescribed fire on existing stands in mid-seral forest structural stages. Maintain appropriate 
stand densities (for example, 80 to 120 square feet of basal area), and use low to moderate severity 
prescribed fires when needed to reduce fuel accumulations and understory density. 

TS-G79. Guideline: To allow regeneration of early successional lodgepole pine and aspen, consider 
using thinning, harvesting, and/or prescribed fire to reduce Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. 
Move these, as well as lodgepole pine and aspen types, toward desired ranges of future conditions 
consistent with biophysical environments. Increase the amount of aspen to levels that would have 
been maintained under the desired fire regimes. This may include the necessity to protect aspen 
regeneration from ungulate grazing. 

TS-G80. Guideline: Consider restoring serai stages dominated by aspen on sites where aspen 
is currently being replaced by conifers, or where stem exclusion/ closed canopy stages are 
declining in health. 

TS-G81. Guideline: Consider the following techniques to re-establish whitebark pine and 
subalpine larch to desired ranges of abundance and distribution: 

♦collecting seed from blister rust-resistant stock, and either sowing seeds or planting seedings; 

♦making grafts of resistant phenotypes and plants; 

♦cross-breeding several blister rust-resistant trees; 

♦artificially inoculating seedlings from rust-resistant or cross-bred stock; 

♦increasing effectiveness of pruning and excising cankers in areas with moderate hazard; 

♦monitoring for new races of blister rust: 

♦reducing competition; 

♦protecting existing stands. 

TS-G82. Guideline: Consider allowing fire to remove shade-tolerant species and restore forest 
structure in higher elevations where there is low economic value or ecological risk. 



;: .,,,,,, ;; . v .,.,.. 



Dry and Moist Forest: Guidelines For Objectives TS-06 And TS-08 

TS-G83. Guideline: Consider reducing density of Douglas-fir and grand fir in mixed conifer 
stands, to reduce the susceptibility of the forest to spruce budworm and tussock moth. Ponderosa 
pine and western larch may be retained in the overstory. 

TS-G84. Guideline: Use a combination of harvesting, mechanical treatments, and/or prescribed 
fire to modify forest composition to dominance by shade-intolerant species (such as ponderosa 
pine, western larch, Douglas-fir). 

TS-G85. Guideline: To reduce density of overstocked, multi-story stands of shade-tolerant species, 
consider using thinning from below and overstory thinning, harvesting, and/or prescribed fire on 
existing stands in regeneration and young forest structural stages to reduce the amount of 
multi-story stands and approach the desired range of future conditions. 

TS-G86. Guideline: Within Forest Cluster 3, consider conducting Ecosystem Analysis at the 
watershed scale to resolve potential conflicts between the conservation of terrestrial and aquatic 
species and habitats and the restoration of forest structure. Rationale: Sub-basins in Forest 
Cluster 3 represent only a moderate opportunity for ecosystem restoration. There is potential conflict 
betweenforest and aquatic management because of fewer opportunities for simultaneous 
restorations with little risk to existing resources. 

Dry, Moist, and Cold Forest: Guidelines For Objectives TS-06, 
TS-08, andTS-OlO 

Composition, Structure 

TS-G87. Guideline: Consider using vegetation management to restore late-seral structure and 
reduce area in mid-seral structure, where these serai stags are outside the desired range of 
conditions. 

TS-G88. Guideline: Consider fragmenting large patches of shade-tolerant species where they are 
found to be outside the desired range of future conditions. Break up their continuity and decrease 
horizontal landscape homogeneity, consistent with biophysical environments and natural 
disturbance regimes. 

TS-G89. Guideline: Consider matching patch sizes to local predicted disturbance regimes. 

TS-G90. Guideline: Consider a variety of conditions, serai stages, and distribution of large trees 
across the landscape. For example, maintain large trees in clumps or islands with intact litter and 
downed wood components, as well as scattered single trees. 

TS-G91. Guideline: Consider using fire, cutting, or browsing to manage woody vegetation while 
maintaining the integrity of meadow soils and native vegetation. 

TS-G92. Guideline: Consider maintaining or restoring late-seral structure in large blocks of habitat 
that are representative of the likely pattern that occurred with historical disturbance events. 

TS-G93. Guideline: On actively managed forested sites, consider leaving a characteristic 
representation of all size classes of woody material through time. In addition, standing dead trees 
may be left as a future debris source, in order to maintain site productivity and wildlife habitat. 



TS-G94. Guideline: Consider using watershed restoration needs and existing roads to determine 
restoration and production activity locations and frequencies. Rationale: The greatest need for 
forest restoration is in watersheds with existing road networks. 

TS-G95. Guideline: Consider minimizing disturbance effects from multiple entries over a narrow 
period of time. Treatments may be complete enough in the first entry to allow future treatments to 
be accomplished from a reduced access system. 

Prescribed Fire 

TS-G96. Guideline: Fire behavior, fuel loading, duff composition, and tree mortality models can be 
used to determine where desired stand conditions can be attained with one or a series of 
prescribed fire treatments, or where stand conditions or other hazards require mechanical thinning 
prior to prescribed fire treatment. 

TS-G97. Guideline: Prescribed fire may be a preferred restoration method. Where necessary, use 
thinning and/ or mechanical fuel reduction in combination with prescribed fire. 

TS-G98. Guideline: Consider both managed and natural prescribed fire as restoration tools. 
Prescribed natural fire can be a more important tool after the forests within a watershed have been 
restored to a fire-resistant condition, or are desired to be in a severe fire regime. 

Snags and Downed Wood 

TS-G99. Guideline: When conducting snag recruitment analysis, consider local disturbance 
regimes to account for replacement trees and associated species needs. Consider providing snag 
and downed log habitats by: slope, aspect, elevation, clumps, groups, decay class, and tree species. 

TS-GIOO. Guideline: Consider providing a variety (clumps/groups, size classes, decay classes, tree 
species) and distribution of snags and downed logs across the landscape, taking into account the 
limits of biophysical environments. 

TS-G101. Guideline: Select snags in areas with a high probability of retention success. Consider 
elevation, aspect, road density, distance to roads, landings, harvest or burn unit boundaries, 
drainage pattern, slope, distribution, and wind-throw hazard. Protect some green trees, to the 
extent possible, in prescribed burning units and other treatment areas for long-term recruitment of 
snags. Monitor snag attrition and adjust strategies to meet objectives. 

TS-G102. Guideline: Consider retaining snags in clumps with their associated understory vegetation 
intact. Also retain scattered individual snags that are well-distributed across the landscape, to 
meet the needs of snag-dependent wildlife species and to reduce vulnerability to snag loss. 

TS-G103. Guideline: Consider leaving extra trees on site for future snag recruitment. 

TS-G104. Guideline: Where appropriate consider creating snags in areas currently or projected to 
be deficient in snag numbers. 

TS-G105. Guideline: Consider developing firewood policies that are in concert with snag retention 
and recruitment objectives. Consider limiting firewood cutting to trees less than 15 inches in 
diameter at breast height (DBH) and within 200 feet of a road. Ensure that firewood sales are 
designed and implemented with snag retention objectives in mind. 

TS-G106. Guideline: In areas where additional snags and downed logs are desired, consider 
protecting existing material during prescribed burning by igniting when moisture content of coarse 
woody debris and duff are high, or by preventing their ignition through choice of lighting 
techniques or use of fire retardants such as foam. 



Terrestrial Species Habitats 

TS-G107. Guideline: Consider using various methods (such as providing patches of denser second 
growth or closing roads) to replace big game security habitat that may be reduced in the process of 
returning some stands to single-layer structure. 

TS-G108. Guideline: Consider maintaining woody riparian vegetation, consistent with desired fire 
regimes, where it is within desired ranges of future conditions, to provide linkage between habitat 
types and elevational zones. Woody riparian vegetation may be restored where needed. 

TS-G109. Guideline: Consider restoring or maintaining vegetation on ridgetops to provide 
movement and linkage between habitat areas. Consider maintaining canopy closure at greater 
than or equal to 40 percent, or within the upper 66 percent of site capability. Consider reducing 
open road density and minimizing roads on ridgetops. 

TS-G110. Guideline: Consider implementing seasonal and timing restrictions and closures of 
appropriate winter recreation activities to meet species requirements that would increase species 
viability and long-term persistence. 

TS-G111. Guideline: Consider reducing fragmentation resulting from many small 
management activities. Restore patch sizes and distribution closer to those found under 
historical disturbance events. 

TS-G112. Guideline: In Forest Clusters 1 and 2, consider using conservation measures to 
maintain or establish large blocks of important habitat that are at risk for aquatic or terrestrial 
species outside of wilderness or unroaded areas. 

TS-G113. Guideline: In Forest Cluster 4, consider protecting raptor nest sites that are currently 
being used or have been used in the past five years, as well as important roost trees and 
associated habitat in the area surrounding the nest trees by at least 500 feet (750 feet for 
goshawks) unless it can be shown that local species needs or conditions differ. 

TS-G114. Guideline: In Forest Cluster 4, consider managing an area up to a one-half mile radius 
around each active raptor nest site for feeding and fledgling activity. Habitat effectiveness for the 
specific raptor species can be retained within the area, and disturbances (such as from road 
construction, timber harvest, prescribed burning) can be avoided from March 1 through August 3 1 
when nests are occupied, or as adapted to local conditions and species. 

Insects and Disease 

TS-G115. Guideline: Consider using thinning, harvesting, and/or prescribed fire to prevent beetle 
epidemics by controlling stand density. 

TS-G116. Guideline: Consider using prevention techniques such as selective cutting, thinning 
dense 70- to 80-year-old stands, and minimizing soil compaction and disturbance during stand 
treatment, to reduce susceptibility of ponderosa pine to western pine beetle by maintaining 
vigorously growing trees. 

TS-G117. Guideline: After harvest, consider using prescribed broadcast burns and/or thinning in 
stands that have been severely infected by dwarf mistletoe. 

TS-G118. Guideline: Where true firs are infected, consider managing to reduce susceptibility of 
stands to annosus root disease by: lowering the number of entries into any given stand, shortening 
rotations, decrease wounding during harvesting, or manipulating species mixtures by changing to 
pine, larch, or Douglas-fir. 



■>:mmm0-Mw^- 



TS-G119. Guideline: Consider managing to reduce the susceptibility of stands to laminated root 
rot by: avoiding shelterwood cuts which favor regeneration of susceptible shade-tolerant species, or 
switching to species more resistant to root rot such as western red cedar, pines, and larch, where 
appropriate. 

TS-G120. Guideline: Consider managing to reduce the susceptibility to Armillaria root disease by: 
using thinning, harvesting, and/or prescribed fire to increase vigor; pre-commercial thinning sites 
of moderately low productivity that are infected; or planting tolerant species such as larch, 
hemlock, pine, and hardwoods in existing infected areas. Minimize subsequent stand entry in 
moist forest PVGs. 

TS-G121. Guideline: Consider removing root-disease-infected stumps after thinning or harvest to 
prevent the infection of future stands on highly productive sites. Minimize soil damage and reforest 
with early-successional species most likely to tolerate the pathogen and soil damage. 

Post-Jire, Post-harvest 

TS-G122. Guideline: During fire salvage, consider leaving unharvested areas within each of the 
community types present. 

TS-G123. Guideline: Consider retaining standing hollow, or otherwise damaged, trees when they 
don't pose a safety hazard. 

TS-G124. Guideline: Whole tree harvesting is not recommended in areas that need additional 
coarse downed wood for wildlife or soil productivity concerns. 

TS-G125. Guideline: Whenever possible, avoid tractor piling slash, and select burning techniques 
that burn woody material in place. 

Aquatic, Riparian Considerations 

TS-G126. Guideline: Consider treatment of uplands to mitigate risks to aquatic/riparian 
ecosystems in conjunction with considerations of treatments to riparian areas. 

TS-G127. Guideline: Consider the spatial and temporal role of natural disturbances within 
uplands and riparian areas in creating and maintaining high integrity aquatic habitat. Consider 
conducting prescribed burns to shield aquatic habitat from severe disturbance. 

TS-G128. Guideline: Consider vegetation management practices that restore and are compatible 
with the spatial and temporal disturbance processes and patterns that encourage attainment of 
riparian management objectives, and in a manner that benefits native aquatic species. 

Roads 

TS-G129. Guideline: Consider using thinning, harvesting, and/or prescribed fire to manage fuels in 
unroaded areas where there is a high risk to ecosystem values, without construction of new roads. 

TS-G130. Guideline: Consider developing road management and access management plans with 
other agencies when necessary to assist meeting wildlife management agencies' objectives. 



■■ . ' ■" :-■■■■■ 



Rangelands 

(For Alternative 7, guidelines apply outside reserves unless otherwise indicated) 

Rangeland Health: Guidelines For Objectives 
TS-012 through TS-016 

TS-G131. Guideline: Consider locating water developments, salts, and supplements to improve 
distribution of livestock away from wetlands, riparian areas, and other sensitive areas such as 
steep slopes or highly erosive soils. 

TS-G132. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): 
Consider developing livestock waters, seedings, and other projects that concentrate livestock use, 
in areas (1) that do not conflict with wintering wildlife, and (2) that will not be opening up new 
ground for livestock grazing that has not been used by livestock in the past. 

TS-G133. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): 
Prior to making adjustments to livestock use as a result of conflicts with big game species, 
consider determining whether: 

♦There is dietary overlap. 

♦They are using the same areas. 

♦The area is in good or degraded range condition. 

♦The use is seasonally different. 

♦The livestock use is conditioning the forage for big game. 

♦The big game population is decreasing. 

♦The area is winter range. 

♦The area provides important fawning, calving, or lambing areas. 

TS-G134. Guideline: Consider the effects of vegetation management strategies on habitat patch 
size and fragmentation. 

TS-G135. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): 
Consider establishing experimental areas for the purpose of studying the role of microbiotic crust 
in ecosystem process and function and to develop new management techniques and test 
traditional management techniques for their ability to maintain or enhance microbiotic crusts. 

TS-G136. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): On 
sites where microbiotic crusts have been determined to have a positive role in either soil stability, 
infiltration and soil water content, nutrient cycling, or vascular plant diversity and seedling 
recruitment, consider incorporating site-specific management activities to either maintain or 
improve microbiotic crust cover. 

TS-G137. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): 
Consider restricting the locations of water developments and salt blocks to protect from grazing 
highly erodible soils or relict areas that provide value as rangeland reference areas. 

TS-G138. Guideline: Consider the season and intensity of grazing use in maintaining soil and 
plant conditions that promote or restore infiltration rates and soil permeability (prevention of 
compaction). Consider short duration, low to moderate utilization with emphasis on grazing during 
dormant seasons. 



STsnm Draft EIS/Appkvmx 3-2/Pm;k 






TS-G139. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): On 
dry shrublands, consider adjusting livestock stocking rates so that during 8 out of 10 years 
foraging does not degrade soil or vegetative productivity during drought periods. 

TS-G140. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): 
Consider developing flexible criteria with livestock grazing operators to ensure that during drought 
years, adjustments to grazing use can be accomplished before damage is done to soil and 
vegetative productivity on dry shrublands. 

TS-G141. Guideline: Consider grazing strategies that promote vegetative cover, soil organic 
matter, high water infiltration rates, subsurface flow, and plant physiological health. 

TS-G142. Guideline: Consider designing management flexibility into grazing strategies in 
order to provide for seedling establishment of perennial vegetation during years with above- 
normal precipitation. 

TS-G143. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): 
Where practical, consider consolidating allotments or livestock herds to maximize management 
flexibility and grazing treatment effectiveness. 

TS-G144. Guideline: Wherever possible and practical, consider using time control grazing principles. 

TS-G145. Guideline: Consider designing grazing rotation patterns according to localized perennial 
bunchgrass physiological requirements. 

TS-G146. Guideline: As allotments in good ecological condition become vacant, consider 
establishing some of them as alternate forage sources. They may be used by permittees who must 
be temporarily restricted from use of areas burned by fires, or who are facing major reductions in 
grazing use due to conflicts with riparian, wildlife, and other values. 

Altered Sagebrush Steppe: Guidelines For Objective TS-013 

TS-G147. Guideline: On rangelands dominated by annual plants, consider livestock grazing 
strategies that provide sufficient residue to maintain hydrologic function following grazing. 

TS-G148. Guideline: Consider developing strategies that are based on the weakest point of the life 
cycle of exotic plants. Focus research efforts on those species that lack detailed information 
regarding life cycles. Explore the possibilities of grazing strategies that may affect seedling 
establishment of annual grasses. 

TS-G149. Guideline: Consider investigating new techniques of biological control for exotics and 
annuals. Consider the use of smut and fungus to control cheatgrass populations. 

TS-G150. Guideline: Consider using green stripping or other types of fire breaks, along roads and 
transition zones between altered sagebrush steppe and the native rangeland plant community, to 
protect adjacent native rangeland areas and altered sagebrush steppe from wildfire. 

TS-G151. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): 
The following techniques may be used to help control or rehabilitate cheatgrass-dominated ranges: 
(1) intensive early spring grazing in cases where soils, remnant native perennial plants, and 
microbiotic crusts will not be adversely affected: (2) herbicides, especially in combination with 
burning or plowing. 



TS-G152. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Consider developing new techniques for 
managing altered sagebrush steppe through experimentation and through coordination with the 
scientific community. Consider establishing studies and experiments on various altered sagebrush 
steppe sites throughout the project area. 

TS-G153. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 7 only, inside reserves): Livestock grazing strategies 
may be used on rangelands dominated by annual plants for controlling wildfire on altered 
sagebrush steppe. 

TS-G154. Guideline: Especially in Range Clusters 5 and 6, consider areas within the current 
range of species such as sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and mountain quail as a high priority 
for conversion of exotic monocultures to native shrublands. 

TS-G155. Guideline: Consider the following when seeding altered sagebrush steppe and other areas: 

♦ soils and precipitation: 

♦ availability of local native seed; 

♦ ability of seeded species to compete with exotic annuals; 

♦ long-term success of seeded species meeting objectives; 

♦ risk of failure; 

♦ meeting biodiversity and wildlife needs; 

♦ not creating monocultures; 

♦ fragmentation and patch-size issues: 

♦ planting and regeneration of shrub species. 

TS-G156. Guideline: Consider creating "islands" of diverse seedings by sowing or planting 
following expansive wildfire to provide seed source for future recruitment. 

Woody Species Reduction: Guidelines For Objective TS-014 

TS-G157. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only): 
Where appropriate, consider avoiding intentional reduction in distribution or extent of native 
grasslands and shrublands. Management can occur that changes age classes of shrubs or amount 
of shrubs. Short-term, local adverse consequences to terrestrial resources may be permitted to 
achieve higher priority ecological objectives. Give priority to areas that have declining or special 
status species. 

TS-G158. Guideline: Consider using prescribed fire for reducing woody species such as ponderosa 
pine, juniper, Douglas-fir, and mountain big sagebrush, on sites where they are displacing the 
native understory vegetation and where perennial grasses are still present in adequate amounts to 
permit fire. 

TS-G159. Guideline: Consider removing livestock grazing early enough in the year to allow 
regrowth of fine fuels to carry fire. 

TS-G160. Guideline: Consider laying out vegetation manipulation projects over a large enough 
area so that livestock and wildlife use will not be concentrated in the project area. 

TS-G161. Guideline: Consider cover requirements for wildlife when laying out vegetation 
manipulation projects. 



■ ' ' : " ■ .:: :., ■ '. '. 



TS-G162. Guideline: Consider the following when developing juniper treatment plans: watershed 
function, water quality, energy flow and nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat, social needs, economic 
use and potential, biodiversity and patchiness, and whether juniper is encroaching or is on a site 
where juniper used to occur under a natural disturbance regime. 

TS-G163. Guideline: Consider identification and delineation for management of juniper (1) where 
it is encroaching but where native understory decline has not yet resulted; (2) where it has 
encroached and increased in density to where native understory has declined; and (3) where its 
density has increased to where all native understory vegetation has been displaced. 

TS-G164. Guideline: To reduce juniper seedlings and trees, consider implementing prescribed fire 
on sites where adequate fuels remain present to carry fire and create flame lengths sufficient to kill 
juniper. The presence of juniper seedlings in the understory of dry shrub, dry grass, or cool shrub 
plant communities, or the presence of more than one large tree per acre capable of producing seed, 
may make an area a candidate for prescribed fire treatment. 

TS-G165. Guideline: On sites where juniper has increased in density to the point where 
understory native vegetation is declining or nearly all understory vegetation has been lost, consider 
a harvest (cutting or chaining] strategy that leaves slash on site, to improve surface soil conditions 
and permit easier establishment and recovery of native or desired exotic understory vegetation, 
and to prevent excessive nutrient removal from these sites. Consider saving large older trees. 

TS-G166. Guideline: Consider giving high priority to areas where shrub and grass cover is 
adequate to carry fire, rather than areas where cutting of trees is necessary, for treatment of 
juniper encroachment into shrub/grass or grass communities. 

TS-G167. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 4, 5 [outside livestock priority areas], and 6 only]: On 
sites where juniper is already in the system and is not dense to the point of reducing understory 
vegetation, consider enhancing plant and animal diversity by producing a mosaic on the landscape 
that includes western juniper in mixture with shrub and grassland types. Consider management 
that promotes western juniper stands characterized by a full complement of understory vascular 
and non-vascular vegetation. 

TS-G168. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only]: Experimental areas for the purpose of 
studying various juniper control methods such as mechanical, grazing, chemical, and burning may 
be established in areas where other species are not at risk. 

TS-G169. Guideline: When attempting to reduce juniper density, consider using methods that 
maintain or improve the areas long term capability to (1) resist wind erosion, (2) support water 
infiltration and permeability rates, and (3] permit moisture storage, while increasing abundance, 
occurrence, and vigor of the herbaceous and shrub components. 

TS-G170. Guideline: In Range Cluster 1, consider using an adaptive management approach to 
validate the effects of juniper woodland density on hydrologic processes and aquatic integrity. 
Possible framework could include a paired watershed approach to evaluate streamflows and water 
quality parameter changes with manipulation of juniper density. 






Aquatic/Riparian Strategies 

Guidelines Related to Objectives AQ-Ol, AQ-02, 
AQ-03, AQ-05, AQ-06, and AQ-O10 

AQ-Gl. Guideline: Consider the following criteria when delineating riparian conservation areas for 
stream channels based on information from site-specific NEPA analysis or Ecosystem Analysis at 
the watershed scale (EAWS) : 

♦ Flood-prone area as defined by Rosgen (1994) or the 100-year floodplain; 
♦Area of active channel migration; 

♦ Extent of riparian vegetation and potential riparian vegetation; 

♦Area of vegetation that would provide shade, large woody debris, nutrients, microclimate, root 
strength, habitat for riparian-dependent species, and a buffer to water quality and 
non-channelized sediment movement and deposition; 

♦ Edge of valley bottom; 

♦ Soil type; 

♦Adjacent sideslope sensitivity. 

AQ-G2. Guideline: Consider the following criteria when delineating riparian conservation areas for 
lakes and wetlands based on information from site-specific NEPA analysis or EAWS:: 

♦The area inundated by normal high water; 

♦The area annually influenced by a high-water table and saturated soils consistent with mean 
annual precipitation regimes; 

♦The extent of riparian vegetation; 

♦Area of vegetation that would provide shade, large woody debris, nutrients, microclimate, root 
strength, habitat for riparian-dependent species, and a buffer to water quality and 
non-channelized sediment movement and deposition; 

♦ Soil type. 

♦Adjacent sideslope sensitivity. 

AQ-G3. Guideline: Consider the following criteria when delineating riparian emphasis areas for 
lands prone to landslides: Lands identified through existing Forest Service/BLM classifications, 
inventories, or slope stability modeling (for example, Level I Stability Analysis, Hammond 1992). 

AQ-G4. Guideline: Within watersheds, consider completing vegetation treatments within a short 
period of time (less than five years). Avoid reentry for a duration that approximates the time 
interval between natural disturbance events. 

AQ-G5. Guideline: Consider planning vegetation treatment actions in a manner to reflect the 
spatial and temporal distribution of natural disturbances. 

AQ-G6. Guideline: Consider strategies that allow sufficient residual vegetation after grazing to 
protect stream banks, dissipate energy, and trap sediment during periods of high flow. 

AQ-G7. Guideline: Consider controlling the timing and intensity of grazing to prevent damage to 
stream banks when they are most vulnerable to trampling. 



■■ ■ ■ ... ■■■ ■■■ ■ ■ 



AQ-G8. Guideline: On rangelands, consider locating water development, fencing, salt, and 
supplements on upland areas to keep domestic livestock from congregating in riparian areas. 

AQ-G9. Guideline: Consider changing livestock type from cows to sheep, to reduce impacts to 
riparian areas, except in historical, current, or proposed bighorn sheep sites. 

AQ-G10. Guideline Consider using regional or state office riparian evaluation guides and 
procedures when assessing Proper Functioning Condition. 

AQ-G11. Guideline: Consider assessing Proper Functioning Condition when conducting 
Ecosystem Analysis. 

AQ-G12. Guideline: Consider monitoring those attributes rated as non-functional. 

AQ-G13. Guideline: Consider developing Riparian Management Objectives in cooperation with 
interested parties including federal, state, and local governments; private landowners; livestock 
operators; and tribal governments. 

AQ-G14. Guideline: NEPA and planning documents for projects within riparian conservation areas 
should specify best management practices (BMPs) required to achieve the Riparian Management 
Objectives, and should include a discussion of the anticipated effectiveness of the BMPs. 

AQ-G15. Guideline: If new information becomes available that indicates that established Riparian 
Management Objectives do not meet the management intent for the riparian conservation areas, 
consider revising Riparian Management Objectives to incorporate the new information. 

AQ-G16. Guideline: Consider establishing qualitative and quantitative watershed disturbance 
(natural and management) levels or parameters for upland and riparian area zones to provide early 
indication of potential watershed cumulative effects and causal mechanisms for aquatic and 
riparian conditions. 

AQ-G17. Guideline: When prioritizing watershed restoration activities, consider life history 
patterns and requirements of riparian-dependent species, especially threatened, endangered, 
proposed, and candidate species and associated designated critical habitat and designated habitat 
within recovery zones. Concurrently consider state water quality agencies' priorities for restoring 
water quality. 

AQ-G18. Guideline: When determining restoration location priorities, consider areas that will 
improve degraded stream reaches typically adjacent to or downstream of high quality habitat, 
thereby improving connectivity. 

AQ-G19. Guideline: Consider reducing road-related effects oh watershed and aquatic resources as 
a high priority for watershed restoration actions. Priority forest and rangeland clusters and 
suggested approaches are discussed in the Scientific Assessment. 

AQ-G20. Guideline: Consider designing watershed restoration actions to influence key aspects of 
ecosystem structure and function such as the following: 

♦ Channel morphology and hydrologic and sediment regimes; 

♦ Riparian vegetation condition and complexity; 

♦ Stream habitat complexity; 

♦ Channel structure (that is, wood and bank stability). 

AQ-G21. Guideline: Diagnose causal mechanisms and processes of degraded watershed and 
aquatic conditions and evaluate various treatment techniques. 



■■•sSr-i^.'-t'^SsiS^^ 



AQ-G22. Guideline: Consider watershed restoration actions when a change has occurred in the 
management regime responsible for degraded conditions . 

AQ-G23. Guideline: Consider directing restoration at the processes that affect the temporal and 
spatial diversity of natural aquatic systems. 

AQ-G24. Guideline: Consider focusing watershed restoration where a minimal investment can 
improve or secure the largest amount of high quality habitat and diverse riparian-dependent 
species communities. 

AQ-G25. Guideline: Consider cooperative watershed restoration actions with adjacent landowners, 
particularly in low-elevation floodplain river systems. 

AQ-G26. Guideline: When conducting Ecosystem Analysis, consider using the information to 
provide a context for setting watershed restoration priorities. 

AQ-G27. Guideline: When conducting watershed restoration actions, consider addressing 
watershed- scale processes and focusing actions in parts of the watershed that play crucial 
ecological roles in watershed and aquatic habitat condition and in the health of riparian-dependent 
species populations. 

AQ-G28. Guideline: Consider land acquisition, exchange, and conservation easements to meet 
Riparian Management Objectives and facilitate restoration of fish stocks and other species at risk 
of extinction. 

AQ-G29. Guideline: Consider cooperating with federal, tribal, state and local governments to secure 
instream flows needed to maintain riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic habitat. 

AQ-G30. Guideline: Consider cooperating with federal, tribal, state, and local agencies, and 
private landowners to develop watershed-based Coordinated Resource Management Plans (CRMPs) 
or other cooperative agreements to meet RMOs. 

AQ-G31. Guideline: Consider cooperating with federal, tribal, and state wildlife agencies to 
identify and eliminate ungulate impacts that prevent attainment of RMOs or adversely affect 
aquatic resources. 

AQ-G32. Guideline: Consider cooperating with federal, tribal and state fish management agencies 
to identify and eliminate adverse effects on aquatic resources associated with fish stocking, fish 
harvest, habitat manipulation, and poaching. 

AQ-G33. Guideline: Trees may be felled in riparian conservation areas when they pose a safety 
risk. Consider keeping felled trees on site when needed to meet woody debris objectives. 

Category 1 Sub-basins: Guidelines Related to 
Objective AQ-04 

AQ-G34. Guideline: Consider designing watershed restoration activities to secure fish strongholds 
and other important riparian-dependent species communities and to improve watershed and 
aquatic conditions in adjacent watersheds or downstream reaches to improve connectivity. 

AQ-G35. Guideline: Activities designed to prevent large natural disturbances should not be 
considered a priority for Category 1 sub-basins. 



EIS/Appkxdo. 3-2/Page 265 



AQ-G36. Guideline: Activities for non-watershed/aquatic resources can be permitted if compatible 
with the Category 1 sub-basin objective. These activities should generally take place outside of fish 
strongholds and other important riparian-dependent species communities and should pose 
minimal risk to watershed and aquatic resources. Existing transportation networks should be used 
for these activities. 

AQ-G37. Guideline: Category 1 sub-basins should not be considered as sites for large-scale 
experimental land management activities. 

AQ-G38. Guideline: Consider coordinating with federal, tribal, state, and local governments and 
resource users to reduce the spread and introduction of non-native fishes. 

Category 2 Sub-basins: Guidelines Related to 
Objective AQ-07 

AQ-G39. Guideline: To improve connectivity, consider designing watershed restoration activities to 
secure fish strongholds and other important riparian-dependent species communities and improve 
watershed and aquatic conditions in adjacent watersheds or downstream reaches. 

AQ-G40. Guideline: Within fish strongholds and other important riparian-dependent species 
communities, consider activities that pose minimal risk and contribute to restoration of watershed, 
riparian, and aquatic resources. Consider existing transportation networks for these activities. 

AQ-G41. Guideline: Outside fish strongholds and other important riparian-dependent species 
communities, consider activities that are designed to restore watershed, riparian, and aquatic 
resources. Restoration activities that address multiple ecological objectives but that pose high 
short-term risks to aquatic resources may be appropriate if there is an expected long-term benefit 
to watershed, riparian, and aquatic resources. 

AQ-G42. Guideline: Consider coordinating and possibly financing watershed, aquatic, and riparian 
restoration through forest and rangeland restoration and production activities. For example, when 
treating forest health problems in dry and moist forests concurrently, conduct watershed, aquatic, 
and riparian restoration activities such as road obliteration, closure, and improvements. 

AQ-G43. Guideline: Activities that reduce threats from natural disturbances outside natural 
ranges of variability may be implemented to protect sensitive and fragmented riparian-dependent 
species populations. 

AQ-G44. Guideline: Category 2 sub-basins outside fish strongholds and other important riparian 
dependent species communities may be appropriate locations for broad-scale experimental 
treatments such as large-scale forest health treatments or livestock grazing strategies. 

A9-G45. Guideline: Consider coordinating with federal, tribal, state, and local governments and 
resource users to reduce the spread and introduction of non-native fishes. 

Category 3 Sub-basins: Guidelines Related to 
Objective AQ-09 

AQ-G46. Guideline: Consider planning and implementing watershed restoration activities to 
conserve fish strongholds and habitats occupied by species of concern or federally listed 
threatened, endangered, and candidate species. 



AQ-G47. Guideline: Within fish strongholds and other important riparian-dependent species 
communities, consider management activities that use the existing road network. 

AQ-G48. Guideline: Consider coordinating and possibly financing watershed, aquatic, and riparian 
restoration through forest and rangeland restoration and production activities. For example, when 
treating forest health problems in dry and moist forests, concurrently conduct watershed, aquatic, 
and riparian restoration activities such as road obliteration, closure, and improvements. 

AQ-G49. Guideline: Activities that reduce threats from natural disturbances outside natural 
ranges of variability may be implemented to protect sensitive and fragmented riparian-dependent 
species populations. 

AQ-G50. Guideline: Category 3 sub-basins outside fish strongholds and other important riparian- 
dependent species communities may be appropriate locations for broad-scale experimental 
treatments such as large-scale forest health treatments or livestock grazing strategies. 

AQ-G51. Guideline: Consider coordinating with federal, tribal, state, and local governments and 
resource users to reduce the spread and introduction of non-native fishes. 

Water Quality: Guidelines Related to Objective 
AQ-013 

AQ-G52. Guideline: Consider cooperating with state water quality agencies in their monitoring, review, 
and determination of existing conditions in comparison to state Water Quality Standards, for which the 
state agencies will identify the status of water quality and the risk to beneficial uses of water. 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species 
and Habitats 

Habitats for Federal Trust Responsibilities: 
Guidelines For Objective HA-Ol 

HA-Gl. Guideline: Through the consultation process, consider developing cooperative efforts with 
tribes to understand and identify their socially and traditionally important habitat types 
(ethno-habitats) . 

HA-G2. Guideline: Consider using tribal cultural expertise to both identify and evaluate socially 
and traditionally important ethno-habitats. (See also TI-02.) 

HA-G3. Guideline: Through the consultation process, consider developing mitigation measures to 
protect and restore habitat conditions to provide opportunities for cultural/traditional use. 

HA-G4. Guideline: During project implementation and monitoring phases, consider allowing for 
new information and requests from affected tribes or traditional users for changes in ethno-habitat 
conditions to be incorporated into project effects and management decisions. (See also HU-02) 

HA-G5. Guideline: In the process of developing land tenure plans, consider both American Indian 
cultural uses and tribes' treaty and social well-being rights and interests. (For example: through 
consultation with tribes, identify land exchanges that would benefit/ protect tribal fishing, 



AwEivonr 3-2; 






JSJHTSK; 







gathering, hunting rights and interests. Consider ways to avoid loss of cultural places culturally 
significant to tribal traditional practices.) (See also HU-02, TI-Ol.) 

HA-G6. Guideline: Through the tribal consultation process, consider modifying livestock grazing 
patterns (especially during spring months) to avoid conflicts with plant gathering practices (for 
example at root and berry patches) and to avoid affecting growth cycles of culturally significant 
plants. (See also TS-04) 

HA-G7. Guideline: Through consultation and/or cooperation with tribes, consider identifying ways 
to enhance habitat conditions for American Indian-tribal interests and rights in fishing, hunting, 
gathering and livestock grazing. 

Viable Populations, and Listed Species Habitats 
and Recovery: Guidelines For Objectives HA-02 
through HA-07 

HA-G8. Guideline: Where it is determined that conflicts exist, consider excluding cross country 
skiing and/or snowmobiling, and the like, to prevent disturbance of known or suspected late 
winter caribou habitat. 

HA-G9. Guideline: Consider managing winter recreation activities to minimize conflicts with the 
conservation of forest carnivores and wintering areas such as dens and ungulate winter ranges. 

HA-G11. Guideline: Consider avoiding roading and harvest that results in fragmentation and/or 
reduction of early winter caribou habitat. 

HA-G12. Guideline: Consider the foraging, nesting, and hiding requirements of terrestrial 
riparian-dependent species as a high priority in management decisions in riparian areas. 

HA-G13. Guideline: Activities that reduce threats from natural disturbances outside natural 
ranges of variability may be implemented to protect sensitive and fragmented populations of 
riparian-dependent species. 

HA-G14. Guideline: Consider developing rangeland management strategies including prescribed 
fire and livestock grazing schemes that provide for restoration of mountain mahogany, bitterbrush 
and quaking aspen. 

HA-G15. Guideline: Consider maintaining productivity of current wild ungulate winter range. 
Apply appropriate livestock grazing measures if areas are within an allotment. 

HA-G16. Guideline: Consider developing integrated management strategies addressing long-term 
ecological integrity of sites and ecosystems to provide for associated species viability or conservation. 

HA-G17. Guideline: Consider conducting inventories to locate local and rare endemics and 
disjunct populations of vertebrates. 

HA-G18. Guideline: In the decision-making process, consider using existing information sources 
such as state Natural Heritage Data Bases. 

HA-G19. Guideline: The geographic distribution of threatened and endangered plant species and 
population sizes may be determined through acceptable inventory methods. Consider documenting 
distribution in a corporate GIS database, keeping the layer accurate and current. 



Eastssdk Draft EIS/Appkmhx 3-2/P.\w. 26' 



HA-G20. Guideline: Consider developing an interim species response matrix that includes 
documented (from literature searches) responses of the species to management activities or natural 
phenomena. Consider using this information to determine management activities for which 
mitigation measures should be recommended or are needed. 

HA-G21. Guideline: Consider developing the conservation strategy guide in a format that can be 
incorporated into land management planning documents as an amendment. 

HA-G22. Guideline: Consider working with state wildlife agencies to eliminate hunting or trapping 
of species with viability concerns. 

HA-G23. Guideline: Consider using information from multiple ecological scales, applied in the 
appropriate ecological context in tiered planning processes. For example, at the scale of this EIS it 
is appropriate to use information at the level of ecological reporting units (ERUs); at the scale of 
Forest Service and BLM land-use plans, it is appropriate to use information that considers the 
interactions and locations of specific ecosystems and groups of species. 

HA-G24. Guideline: During ecosystem analysis consider conducting an analysis of connectivity. 
Specific conditions and particular locations (including those identified in the Scientific Assessment) 
could be evaluated as to (1) their ability to link large blocks of habitat, (2) the likelihood that 
existing bottlenecks may prevent connecting important areas, and (3) the opportunities to obtain 
more secure areas of connectivity that have mixed ownerships. 

HA-G25. Guideline: Consider working with state highway departments to secure travel routes 
where interstate highways, such as Snoqualmie Pass. Monida Pass, Santiam and Lost Trail Pass, 
are currently acting as barriers for terrestrial species, particularly large, wide-ranging carnivores. 

HA-G26. Guideline: Contingent on human safety concerns, consider managing human access and 
minimizing potential disturbances to protect caves, old mines, old buildings, bridges and other 
sites being used by bats. 

HA-G27. Guideline: Consider evaluating the potential habitat value of talus for reptile and other 
species prior to any proposal to disturb or remove. 

HA-G28. Guideline: Consider habitat features such as wetlands, bogs, wet meadows, seeps and 
springs where management activities could cause unacceptable impacts to amphibians. 

HA-G29. Guideline: Consider inventorying sites of amphibian populations within wetlands, 
and other sites expected to be important to amphibians to aid in characterization of local 
species and populations. 

Livestock/Wildlife Conflicts: Guidelines For 
Objective HA-07 

HA-G30. Guideline: Consider inoculating domestic sheep against lung worm and other viruses 
known to be problems for bighorn sheep prior to entry on public lands within or adjacent to 
bighorn sheep habitat. Keep inoculations current. Coordinate with federal and state animal health 
agencies (APHIS, State Agriculture Department, etc.) 

HA-G31. Guideline: Consider using livestock handling techniques that avoid key habitat areas for 
carnivores. Minimize conflicts that lead to animal damage control measures. Control only known 
offending animals and as a last resort. 






HA-G32. Guideline: In historical unoccupied bighorn sheep ranges or recent reintroduction sites 
and proposed bighorn sheep reintroduction sites, consider changing the class of livestock from 
domestic sheep to cattle if the opportunity presents itself. This should reduce the potential of 
disease transmission between domestic and wild sheep in the future. 

Human Uses and Values 

Collaboration: Guidelines Related to Objective HU-Ol 

HU-Gl. Guideline: Consider creating small groups such as local advisory groups or task forces 
that meet face-to-face over time and contain a balance of interests in public land management. 
This may help diverse stakeholders to better understand different points of views and acquire what 
others have learned through interaction with natural resources. This is not a substitute for efforts 
to encourage participation from the general public, but it could help to ensure that diverse 
interests are acknowledged and carefully considered. 

HU-G2. Guideline: Consider the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) when 
establishing advisory groups. 

HU-G3. Guideline: Consider holding business-like annual stakeholder meetings in a reasonable 
number of communities within the unit's geographic area. These meetings could include presentation 
of the previous year's activities and planned projects and priorities for the upcoming year, including 
sufficient background information. Stakeholders could then have time to provide comments, and 
the appropriate line officer would document specifically how the comments were used. 

HU-G4. Guideline: Consider focus groups, regular polls or surveys of local and regional 
residents and interest groups, or regular public forums designed to seek input and comment 
on projects and programs. 

HU-G5. Guideline: Consider ways for the public to nominate areas they find important for 
restoration or for other projects. The line officer would share the final list of projects with the 
public. This could help to align scientific priorities with public ones, as well as alert local businesses 
and residents (such as contractors, suppliers, or employees) about potential opportunities. 

HU-G6. Guideline: Consider establishing cooperative agreements between agencies and other 
landowners to help meet ecosystem objectives and manage access across administrative 
boundaries. Agreements with private landowners would be voluntary, based on positive incentives. 
Recognize the sensitivity and volatility of private lands in ecosystem management. 

HU-G7. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 4 only): Consider organizing public participation 
efforts based on Ecological Reporting Units or other meaningful ecological units such as river 
basins or watersheds. 

HU-G8. Guideline: To better understand and incorporate how the public defines and values places 
in the landscape, consider conducting a place assessment for use in land-use planning, 
implementation, and monitoring efforts. 

HU-G9. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 5 only): Consider organizing regional-level planning groups, 
jointly chartered by the Forest Service and BLM under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Membership 
could be designed to represent a full range of stakeholder interests and could be expected to meet at 
least two to four times per year, to make recommendations on ecosystem management and other land- 
use planning, implementation, and monitoring efforts. The groups could establish subgroups to address 
issues at a more local level and make recommendations to the regional group. 



Minimizing Shifts in Commercial Activity: 
Guidelines Related to Objective HU-05 

HU-G10. Guideline: The local manager may seek advice and recommendations of local, state, and 
tribal officials, in determining the annual rate of change in outputs during the adjustment period 
until the objective is met. 

Economic Diversity: Guidelines Related to 
Objective HU-07 

HU-Gll. Guideline: Consider exploring possible actions with the appropriate economic 
development agency(ies), elected officials, and the public. 

HU-G12. Guideline: Consider designating federal or cooperative sustained yield units. 

HU-G13. Guideline: Consider locating and constructing new federal facilities in wildland areas 
with consideration for wildland fire; refurbish old facilities with fire resistant materials as 
maintenance is required. 

HU-G14. Guideline: Consider giving high priority for prescribed burning to areas covered by 
agreements with local fire protection agencies and landowners. 

HU-G15. Guideline: Consider the trade-offs between reducing the risk of wildfire and maintaining 
wildlife cover when conducting prescribed burns. Techniques can include varying canopy closure; 
retaining logs to maintain wildlife cover and soil productivity; and retaining patches of unthinned 
habitat where it is not hazardous to private property. 

HU-G16. Guideline: Consider maintaining and keeping open the access routes for emergency 
equipment near wildland/urban interface areas. 

HU-G17. Guideline: Consider working with interested county and local governments to develop 
building codes, access requirements, and fire-fighting water sources in areas of new rural 
construction; and to develop guidelines for existing property owners to reduce the potential for loss 
from wildland fires. 

HU-G18. Guideline: Consider supporting state and local government programs that encourage 
rural property owners to manage fuels and otherwise mitigate fire hazard on their property. 

HU-G19. Guideline: Consider using the following approaches to monitor the effectiveness of efforts 
to increase community resiliency: First, survey participants in the process to gain an 
understanding of how they perceived the process, outcome, and the federal agencies' roles and 
contributions. Second, help communities track the economic and social indicators developed. 
Third, track changes in resiliency across the interior Columbia River Basin using the Community 
Resiliency Index (or similar measure) to assess whether improvement is being made from a 
basin-wide perspective. 

HU-G20. Guideline: Consider the following methods to assess and address the needs of 
community leaders and residents: cosponsoring workshops to assist community leaders and. 
residents prepare for economic and social changes expected to affect local areas; strategic planning 
and marketing; promotion of desirable industries; and enhancing awareness of grants and other 
possible funding sources. 



HU-G21. Guideline: Consider using advisory groups to provide a forum for identifying the locally 
important aspects of community resiliency and how the Forest Service and BLM could assist with 
efforts to improve them. 

HU-G22. Guideline: To help increase resiliency in interested communities in the forested 
parts of the project area, consider starting with communities located in the "isolated 
timber-dependent areas in counties with slower population growth" identified in the Economic 
Chapter of the Scientific Assessment. 

HU-G23. Guideline: Consider generating a list of economic and social indicators judged to be of 
importance to local communities. These could then be tracked over time to measure progress 
toward increasing resiliency. Machlis and Force (1995) can be used as a reference. 

HU-G24. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 7 only): Consider focusing efforts to increase resiliency 
on communities that are least resilient and expected to be most affected by changes in outputs 
resulting from creation of reserves. 

HU-G25. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Possible variables to study include the role of 
civic leadership, social cohesion, economic diversity, amenity resource base, and public land 
management policies and outputs. Possible strategies include survey research, focus groups, and 
secondary research. Longitudinal studies of selected communities and how they change over time 
may be helpful; the case studies and economic information collected at the community level as part 
of the Social Chapter of the Scientific Assessment may provide a useful starting point. 

HU-G26. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Consider community and regional input in 
designing and conducting research, to verify that it is responsive to a wide range of issues facing 
rural communities in the planning area. Communicate the findings in a diversity of formats and 
styles to reach community leaders and residents. 

HU-G27. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Consider the following ways to monitor the 
effectiveness of programs or activities: (1) conduct surveys of participants to gain understanding of 
how they perceived the outcome and the federal agencies' roles, and (2) track economic and social 
indicators. Machlis (1995) can be used as a reference. 

HU-G28. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Consider the experience and ingenuity of 
resource managers, community residents, and public land management stakeholders to determine 
appropriate procedures. 

HU-G29. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Consider conducting an annual conference of 
advisory group members to share ideas and information. 

HU-G30. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Some administrative units may seek the ability 
to pay public participants, particularly for tasks such as actively participating in monitoring all 
types of resource management activities. 

HU-G31. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Consider monitoring the effectiveness of 
advisory groups through surveys of participants and regional and national populations, as well as 
by measuring progress toward the groups' stated objectives. 

HU-G32. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Consider requesting that the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA) be clarified or adapted to allow more flexibility in creating or working with 
established public /private groups to assist with public land management planning, 
implementation, and monitoring. 

HU-G33. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 7 only): Consider tailoring requested programs to the 
type and level of impacts identified. For example, ecosystem enhancement programs could include 
jobs-in-the-woods projects to hire dislocated forest workers and businesses in affected communities 
to work on ecosystem restoration projects at family wage levels. 



Risks from Wildfire: Guidelines Related to 
Objective HU09 

HU-G34. Guideline: Consider developing contracts for private sector participation in fuels 
management using salvage rights to materials removed when reducing risk of fire. 

HU-G35. Guideline: Consider identifying possible sites where forage for livestock, fuelwood, or 
commercial forest products could be made available as a by-product of fuels reduction actions. If 
possible make such products available and at favorable terms for use in recognition of intermittent 
availability and additional management constraints. 

Recreation Guidelines Related to Objectives 
HU-Ol though HU-Ol 2 

Recreation Opportunities: Guidelines Related to Objective HU- 
O10 

Planning 

HU-G36. Guideline: To maintain primitive or semi-primitive recreation opportunities, 
consider designing projects with road cost efficiency in mind and in a way that facilitates road 
closure or obliteration. 

HU-G37. Guideline: Consider maintaining existing primitive and semi-primitive settings that 
provide opportunities for solitude and other benefits where these settings currently exist. If new 
roads or other actions in these areas are expected to change the long-term nature of the 
experience, manage the roads and/or access to maintain the setting's primitive qualities in a 
manner compatible with other objectives for the area. For Alternative 7, this applies to areas 
outside of reserves. 

HU-G38. Guideline: Consider implementing a planning process such as Limits of Acceptable 
Change for all wildernesses and areas where visitor use has reached or could reach in the 
foreseeable future, a level that could adversely impact significant resource values and/or the 
quality of the visitor's experience. This process should define the types and levels of recreational 
impacts that are acceptable given the objectives of each area. 

HU-G39. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 7 only): Consider implementing a planning process 
such as Limits of Acceptable Change for all areas included within reserves to define the types and 
levels of recreational impacts that are acceptable given the objectives of each reserve. Existing 
recreational uses could be allowed provided that limits are not exceeded or at risk of being exceeded. 

HU-G40. Guideline: Consider adopting a benefits-based approach to recreation and tourism 
planning. 

HU-G41. Guideline: Seek to develop or maintain recreation opportunities that are socially, 
environmentally, and financially sustainable, considering the following principles: 

♦The tourism opportunity fits well into the ecosystem and the natural environment is the 
central attraction; 

♦Any needed development is sensitive to the natural environment and minimizes impacts to 
native species and the natural landscape; 






♦ People have an opportunity to learn interesting aspects of the natural and cultural environment 
through outdoor recreation and active participation; 

♦The tourism opportunity is developed in concert with and supported by local and regional 
residents; 

♦The tourism opportunity is designed to become financially self-supporting (people are willing 
and able to pay); 

♦ Construction, management, and visitation take place with the goal of minimizing energy usage 
and encouraging people involved with the tourism opportunity to be environmentally sensitive. 

HU-G42. Guideline: Consider opportunities to enhance and create corridor recreation 
opportunities by promoting linear recreation spaces (trails, bikeways, waterways and roads), and 
where appropriate, promote their use as connectors of attractions. 

HU-G43. Guideline: Consider maintaining, creating, expanding, or diversifying trail systems in 
and adjacent to urban and rural areas, to link public and private recreation and tourism 
opportunities and to enhance compatibility among visitors by dispersing use. 

HU-G44. Guideline: In cooperation with federal, tribal, state agencies, and local communities, 
consider participating in corridor management planning and plan implementation efforts for 
current and future Scenic, Historic, or Back Country Byways. 

HU-G45. Guideline: Consider identifying and promoting the use of abandoned transportation 
corridors, such as rail routes. 

HU-G46. Guideline: Consider providing for a variety of public recreation opportunities and 
experiences through visitor awareness, information on BLM- or Forest Service- administered 
recreation resources, interpretation, environmental education, protection, and adequately 
identifying these lands with an emphasis on field presence where appropriate. 

HU-G47. Guideline: Consider increasing emphasis on resource protection, environmental 
education, interpretation, and information in the design of new facilities. Consider reducing 
maintenance costs and enhancing the visitors' experiences. 

HU-G48. Guideline: Consider developing environmental education, interpretive, and information 
plans for all major recreation areas. 

HU-G49. Guideline: Consider fish and wildlife management practices that provide a variety of 
wildlife-related recreation opportunities. 

HU-G50. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 7 only): Consider cooperating with other public and 
private recreation and tourism providers in the region to develop strategies for capitalizing on the 
reserve system. 

HU-G51. Guideline: Consider input from interested cave groups when developing cave 
management plans. 

Marketing 

HU-G52. Guideline: Consider promoting the project area's historical and cultural resource sites as 
destination opportunities for recreation and tourism, where appropriate. For Alternative 7, 
direction applies to areas outside of reserves. 

HU-G53. Guideline: Consider ecotourism opportunities to provide visitors with hands-on 
experience in accomplishing restoration activities. 



HU-G54. Guideline: Consider encouraging the redistribution of visitors away from overused BLM- 
or Forest Service-administered lands to enhance the quality of the recreation experience and 
protect environmental quality. 

HU-G55. Guideline: Consider developing a network of education and information centers to better 
market recreation and tourism products and services to residents and visitors. 

Management 

HU-G56. Guideline: When appropriate, consider managing visitor use on BLM- or Forest 
Service-administered lands through the permitting process to protect resource values, reduce use 
conflicts, and provide increased opportunities for safe and enjoyable recreation experiences. 

HU-G57. Guideline: When appropriate, consider managing caves to provide primitive, undeveloped 
recreation opportunities. Consider taking special action to protect resource values if recreation use 
of a given cave has known or potential adverse impacts to threatened, endangered, and/or 
sensitive plants or animals; to cultural resources; or to geologic, paleontologic, or mineral features. 

HU-G58. Guideline: Consider improved corridor signing, particularly trail signing. 

HU-G59. Guideline: Consider maintaining the opportunity for spontaneous, non-regulated 
recreation through information, education, and maintenance efforts. 

Construction/Maintenance 

HU-G60. Guideline: Consider providing needed facility improvements in a fiscally responsible 
manner consistent with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) setting; existing and projected 
demand; protection of resources; local, state, and federal health and safety requirements; and 
physical development capabilities. 

HU-G61. Guideline: Consider developing a priority-based maintenance management approach 
that ensures facilities and resources are cared for and exhibit the highest level of quality. 

HU-G62. Guideline: Consider operating and maintaining existing recreation facilities, including 
recreation sites, roads, and trails in a manner that protects the public investment, provides for 
public health and safety, and fosters pride of public ownership. 

HU-G63. Guideline: Consider developing environmental education materials for all ages that 
explain how natural systems work and the role and importance of fish, wildlife and other resources 
in these natural ecosystems. 

Access for Recreation: Guidelines Related to Objective HU-Oll 

HU-G64. Guideline: Consider maintaining or providing access to existing recreational 
opportunities, including activities and facilities, unless it can be demonstrated that the social, 
physical, or biological effects of those uses preclude achieving more critical objectives. 

HU-G65. Guideline: Consider using corridors to maintain public access to recreation and tourism 
opportunities. 

HU-G66. Guideline: Consider providing additional access to water-based recreation opportunities 
where social and ecological conflicts would not be increased. 

HU-G67. Guideline: Consider providing recreation access to BLM- or Forest Service-administered 
lands whenever possible through efforts, such as partnership relationships, exchange, ownership 

adjustment, or easement acquisition. 



Apmmvc 3-2: 



:.■■:■::■:■: 



mm 



;::■..::■::""" .' : : . : ■■-■:■:■ :■■ ■ :: : : : : . ■.....■■■..-■■■■ v.- ■■-■ . ' ■\~ ■:::■■-:. 



Efficiency in Recreation Management: Guidelines Related to 
Objective HU012 

Partnerships 

HU-G68. Guideline: Consider providing recreation opportunities by coordinating with private and 
other public recreation and tourism providers to make service delivery as efficient as possible and 
to promote cooperation rather than competition for market share. Coordinate marketing and 
public information efforts to make the public aware of opportunities. 

HU-G69. Guideline: In coordination with other recreation providers, consider expanding efforts to 
provide increased awareness, understanding of, and appreciation for BLM- or Forest 
Service-administered resources and accompanying recreational opportunities through development 
of suitable information about these resources, including signs, brochures, and maps; through 
other print, visual, and electronic media; and through quality, on-the-ground public contact. 

HU-G70. Guideline: Administrative units may wish to consider establishing or joining tourism 
cooperatives made up of other recreation providers to coordinate service delivery at a more local level. 

HU-G71. Guideline: Consider creating or joining regional tourism councils to coordinate at the 
broad regional level. The purpose of the regional council could be to collect and distribute 
information on regional, national, and international trends affecting demand for and supply of 
recreation and tourism opportunities. It could also identify and foster opportunities for local units 
to work together to capitalize on trends and conditions identified. 

HU-G72. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 7 only): Consider working with local governments and 
residents to identify existing recreation opportunities that are now restricted or prohibited within 
reserves and to provide these opportunities on other public or private land. 

HU-G73. Guideline: Consider participating with private, nonprofit and public sectors in developing 
and implementing a dynamic regional planning process that expands the Statewide 
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) for ongoing recreation and tourism planning, 
using a long-term approach. 

HU-G74. Guideline: Consider supporting and enhancing interagency watershed planning efforts 
(such as state river basin planning), by pooling funds and expertise. 

HU-G75. Guideline: Consider revenue sources of all agencies and potentially private sector 
funding to maximize the benefits of limited funds available for recreation and tourism. 

HU-G76. Guideline: Consider creating and maintaining a database that may be used by all 
partners involved in providing outdoor recreation and tourism in the project area and that includes 
current tourism enterprises and outdoor recreation facilities, access, services, attractions, and 
programs that make up the project area's outdoor recreation and tourism industry. 

Visitor Services 

HU-G77. Guideline: Consider working with other agencies and private businesses, including 
recreation service partners, to develop and distribute coordinated information that will benefit both 
users and business interests on BLM- or Forest Service-administered lands. 

HU-G78. Guideline: Consider increasing use of trained seasonal workers, volunteers, and private 
recreation providers to manage and maintain public facilities. 



Environmental Education/Interpretation 

HU-G79. Guideline: Consider public-private partnerships to manage, staff, and deliver quality 
outreach programs at education and information centers and to deliver off-site environmental 
education to groups, such as school children, clubs and organizations, and tourism service employees. 

HU-G80. Guideline: Consider seeking to establish demonstration areas for recovery of operation 
and maintenance costs. 

HU-G81. Guideline: Consider instituting a program similar to the Army Corps of Engineers' 
Recreation Partnership Initiative, which was designed to add recreation facilities to public lands at 
little or no cost to the federal government. 

Revenues 

HU-G82. Guideline: Consider evaluating the market for new types of profit-generating opportunities 
that could help pay for needed recreation opportunities that are not able to be self-supporting. 

HU-G83. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 3 to 6 only): Consider recovering the fair market value 
from commercial recreation permittees, concessionaires, and sponsors of events for use of BLM- or 
Forest Service-administered lands. 

HU-G84. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 7 only): Consider discouraging commercially-sponsored 
recreation events in reserves. 

HU-G85. Guideline: Consider implementing user fees at developed sites subject to criteria found 
in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended, and consistent with fees being 
charged by other land management agencies and the private sector. 

Visual Quality: Guidelines Related to Objective HU-013 

HU-G86. Guideline: Consider seeking opportunities to improve scenic integrity while meeting 
other objectives. Priority for improvement could be areas where scenic quality is relatively more 
important, such as recreation sites and areas that are adjacent or within the viewshed of growing 
urban areas. 

HU-G87. Guideline: Consider designing vegetation management to increase visual variety where it 
is appropriate and currently lacking, increase species and size class variety, create or open up 
vistas from recreational routes and sites, and reduce risk of potential loss of scenic integrity from 
fire, insects or disease. 

HU-G88. Guideline: Consider mitigating visual impacts and/or rehabilitating an equivalent 
amount of lower scenic integrity land to result in no net loss and reduce risk of potential loss of 
scenic integrity from fire, insects or disease. 

HU-G89. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 7 only): Consider applying existing visual quality 
objectives only in areas outside reserves; biological objectives could take precedence in reserves. In 
cases where other objectives have a higher priority than scenic integrity, and where meeting those 
objectives would lower scenic integrity, consider mitigating visual impacts. 



Tribal Interests 

Government-to-Govemment Cooperation and 
Relations: Guidelines Related to Objectives TI-Ol 

TI-Gl. Guideline: (Applies to Alternatives 1, 2, 3. 6, and 7): For species or resources that are 
currently not meeting tribal needs, or are declining, or are expected to not meet future needs, 
consider assessing the potential for cooperative efforts to rehabilitate habitat or increase 
production of resources. (See also HA-Ol) 

TI-G2. Guideline: Consider working cooperatively with tribes to restore, manage, and rehabilitate 
resources that are not currently meeting tribal needs or are expected to decline in the future. (See 
also HA-Ol) 

TI-G3. Guideline: Consider allocating areas for habitats needed to maintain or restore harvestable 
populations within each area of tribal ceded lands. (See also HA-Ol) 

TI-G4. Guideline: Consider pursuing partnerships and cooperative funding for projects to enhance 
resources needed by tribes. (See also HA-Ol) 

TI-G5. Guideline: Consider working with the tribes and other agencies to establish a monitoring 
and tracking system, as needed, for tribal harvest, population trends of harvest species, 
effectiveness of treatments, and conflicts with other users, management, or resources demands. 
(See also HU-02) 

TI-G6. Guideline: Consider tribal reservation management plans and defer to tribal plans 
especially regarding "in common" rights and privileges. (See also HU-02) 

TI-G7. Guideline: Where species conservation needs exist, tribal harvest can be monitored by 
Forest Service and BLM/states/tribes to ensure that harvest and gathering does not adversely 
affect habitat or reduce populations of species to the point where federal listing may become 
necessary, or where federally listed, proposed, or candidate species are adversely affected. (See also 
HU-02. HA-Ol) 

TI-G8. Guideline: Consider identifying opportunities to attain shared goals in cultural, social and 
natural resource arenas at all agency levels. Develop a program approach to cooperative activities; 
address barriers at the government-to-government level. (See also HU-S4,5,6) 

TI-G9. Guideline: Consider developing a programmatic approach in addressing the agency/tribe 
consultation process. In so doing, liaison positions or functions with access to decision-makers 
can be used along with policy processes, to help focus dialogue with affected tribes, solve issues, 
and enhance understandings between agencies and tribes. 

TI-GIO. Guideline: Where conflict occurs between statutory directions and tribal treaty rights 
or federal trust responsibilities, consider giving priority to the latter in relationship to the 
regulations. Where appropriate, seek opportunities to use tribal technical expertise in agency 
actions (planning and monitoring project phases), and share agency technical expertise and 
information with tribal governments. 






Sense of Place: Guidelines For Objective TI-02 

TI-Gll. Guideline: Consider using National Historic Preservation Act (Bulletin 38) direction as the 
context for identifying and understanding traditional cultural properties. 

TI-G12. Guideline: Consider completing an assessment of places as a part of Ecosystem Analysis 
at the watershed scale within the consultation process with both affected tribes and American 
Indian communities and existing anthropological literature and research methods. (This may 
require specific studies and following confidentiality rules to provide assessment direction.) 

TI-G13. Guideline: Consider conducting broad and intermediate scale efforts to involve multiple 
tribes/Indian communities to identify and provide direction to the federal agencies' American 
Indian place assessment process. (This would be best accomplished with agency facilitation of 
inter-tribal suggested directives.) 

TI-G14. Guideline: Tribes, states, and federal agencies may participate in implementation 
oversight. (See also HU-02.) 

Road Management 

Roads: Guidelines For Objectives RM-02 through 
RM-04 

RM-Gl. Guideline: Consider incorporating channel condition, sensitivity, and inherent capability 
when assessing road-related effects to ecosystems. 

RM-G2. Guideline: The road risk/ condition inventory could help identify risks to and potential 
effects on aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial resources, and assist in prioritizing areas for 
restoration or improvement. 

RM-G3. Guideline: Consider developing and implementing methods for road management that 
weigh the benefits of the road, the environmental risks, and the potential environmental damage 
resulting from removing the road. Use this information to identify and prioritize roads for 
rehabilitation, closure, or obliteration to reduce road-related effects on watershed, soil, terrestrial, 
and aquatic resources. 

RM-G4. Guideline: Incorporating wetlands and slope stability analyses into road design plans 
could help avoid wetlands and unstable slopes when locating roads. 

RM-G5. Guideline: As part of each transportation plan, consider including a storm inspection and 
emergency maintenance process to prevent damage to watershed, soil, and aquatic resources. 

RM-G6. Guideline: Consider relocating roads currently in riparian areas where they have failed or 
are at risk of failure, or otherwise are not contributing to attainment of ICBEMP objectives, to 
areas where risk of failure is low and relocation will contribute to attainment of objectives. 
Preference for road relocation is outside riparian areas. 

RM-G7. Guideline: When obliterating or closing roads, consider implementing the most feasible 
method (for example, re-contouring, culvert removal, waterbar construction, seeding) to reduce 
road-related sediment and streamflow effects on aquatic resources. 



RM-G8. Guideline: When conducting road risk/condition inventories, consider culverts, bridges, 
and other stream crossings, and evaluate the potential risk posed by each stream crossing during 
major storm events. Priority for upgrading could be based on the risk potential to watershed and 
aquatic resources and the ecological values of these resources. 

RM-G9. Guideline: Consider controlling road access, where appropriate, with the intent to limit 
introductions of exotic aquatic species. 

RM-G10. Guideline: When transporting toxic chemicals within riparian conservation areas, 
consider minimizing risk of spill by using alternative routes where feasible. 

RM-G11. Guideline: To minimize impacts, consider using existing road systems for access. If new 
roads must be built, design them with the intent that they will be for short-term use and will be 
closed and rehabilitated. 

RM-G12. Guideline: In lieu of road closures, consider alternative solutions such as improved 
maintenance or road redesign for reducing or preventing resource damage to provide continued 
access for recreation and other management opportunities. 

RM-G13. Guideline: When analyzing access management strategies, consider the effects on all 
modes of recreational transportation such as automobiles, 4-wheel drive vehicles, all-terrain 
vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles, horseback, and foot traffic. 

Adaptive Management and Monitoring 

Adaptive Management: Guidelines Related to 
Objective AM-Ol 

AM-Gl. Guideline: Consider agency or other researchers in study design, sampling methods, data 
collection, management and analysis, and evaluation of management applications for activities 
aimed at enriching knowledge of management techniques or ecological knowledge. 

AM-G2. Guideline: Consider cooperating with other federal, tribal, state, and county governments 
and private landowners involved with the management of non-public lands. This cooperation might 
include (1) initiating statewide level interagency coordination meetings, (2) developing standard 
procedures for interagency and intergroup data storage, management, and exchange, (3) organizing 
and participating in state, regional, and national workshops attended by personnel from other 
agencies and organizations involved with noxious weed management. (4) participating in the 
Western Weed Coordinating Committee, (5) assisting in developing procedures for interagency and 
intergroup participation in cooperative studies of prevention of noxious weed spread, introduction 
of noxious weeds into new areas, treatments for the control of noxious weeds, and restoration of 
the native plant communities that have been infested by noxious weeds, and (6) developing 
interagency training courses focused on the 7 steps of the Integrated Weed Management strategy. 

AM-G3. Guideline: Consider coordinating with county and city planning staff and zoning 
committees to include consideration for noxious weed management when developing or approving 
subdivision plans, special use permits, or leases. 

AM-G4. Guideline: Consider outreach plans at all administrative levels to improve public 
understanding of the need to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and the need to manage the 
populations of noxious weeds. 

AM-G5. Guideline: Consider coordinating herbicide treatment plans with American Indian tribes- 
communities and the interested public, and incorporating information into these treatment plans 
concerning habitats of social or traditional importance, in order to minimize risks to human health. 









AM-G6. Guideline: Consider research that is geared toward assessing the effects of exotic species 
invasion on habitats of social or traditional importance to American Indians and how the native 
plant cultural places might be restored and conserved. 

AM-G7. Guideline: (Applies to Alternative 6 only): Consider developing and using monitoring plans 
to assess the effects of fire and fire suppression activities on vegetation, soil, watershed, wildlife, 
and cultural resources. 

Monitoring: Guidelines Related to Objective AM-02 

AM-G8. Guideline: Forest Service Regional and BLM State Offices should consider identifying 
pristine or near natural areas that can serve as reference for evaluation of long-term effects of land 
management actions. Consider selecting watersheds to represent the diverse conditions and 
environments found among forest and rangeland clusters and sub-basin categories. 

AM-G9. Guideline: If pristine or near natural watersheds are restricted in number and variation, 
consider using watersheds that have a limited minimal management history as part of the 
reference network to provide an indication of variability and rates of recovery. 

AM-GIO. Guideline: The effectiveness of recreation and tourism strategies can be measured and 
monitored in a variety of ways, including the following: 

♦ Surveys of recreation visitors at select sites can assess satisfaction with the experience as well 
as demand for other opportunities. 

♦ Data on visitor expenditures and estimation of net economic value (consumer surplus) can 
provide estimates of economic benefits. 

♦ Household surveys can measure latent demand for recreation, while regional or national 
surveys can help to identify potential market segments, niches, and strategies for attracting 
new visitors. 

AM-G11. Guideline: Consider monitoring recreationist and tourist use patterns, perceptions, 
impacts on the resource, and assessment of experience quality by geographic level (such as river 
reach, counties, regions, or other government entities). Consider defining minimum recreation and 
tourism data needs (such as quality of experience, activity by duration, important setting 
attributes, socioeconomic and resource impacts, and customer-desired management options), and 
adopt a set of standard measures and data base parameters needed for decision-making. 

AM-G12. Guideline: Consider assessing the status and condition of existing recreation access 
roads and trails every five years and developing a strategy for their repair and maintenance 
commensurate with public use and resource protection. 

AM-G13. Guideline: Consider the status and condition of existing recreation sites to determine 
which sites should continue to be managed, which should be redesigned and reconstructed or 
expanded, and which should be transferred to new ownership, closed, or removed. 

AM-G14. Guideline: Consider monitoring the Special Recreation Permit and Concession Programs 
in order to strengthen them and assure appropriate user fees are charged. 

AM-G15. Guideline: Consider an on-the-ground monitoring program that begins with the highest 
priority areas to assure that the basic natural, cultural, and scenic resources are properly 
protected as directed in land-use planning documents and legislative mandates. 

AM-G16. Guideline: Consider monitoring planning area-wide progress toward recreation objectives 
using the scenic integrity model developed as part of the Scientific Assessment. 



EAStstOB Drift ElSfP 



United States 
Department of 

Agriculture 



Foresc 
Service 
Regions 1/4/5/S 



United States 
Dapartmant: of 
Interior 



Bureau of 

Land Management 

OSO/ISO/CSO 



Raply to: 2670 (FS) 

6840 (BLM-OR931) 



Data: May 24, 1995 



Subject: Implementation of PACFISH 

To j USDI Bureau of Land Management: Vale, Spokane, Prineville, DTciah, 

Bakersfield Districts and Upper Columbia-Salmon/Clearwater Ecosystem 

Office; 

USDA Forest Service: PACFISH Forest Supervisors 



The PACFISH Implementation Team has consolidated and responded to the questions 
raised at the five PACFISH Field Implementation workshops held during March and 
April at which over 450 BLM and FS field staff attended. Responses to these 
questions have been reviewed by the appropriate Regional and State office staff 
units and will provide the direction to be followed by field units. 

The PACFISH Implementation Team haa given special emphasis to the range program 
a n d the glossary term "retard attainment of RMOs" (Enclosure B) . 

Field unifca w«re to complete the screening of ongoing projects within 
watersheds with designated critical habitat within 3 days of the signing of 
the PACFISH EA and within 60 days of signing for those watersheds outside 
designated critical habitat. The former haa been completed; for area* outside 
designated critical habitat we are extending the date for completion of the 
screens to July 1 (Enclosure C) . 

Implementation monitoring aa discussed at the field team workshops haa been 

refined and will be provided to the field units the first week of June. The 

PACFISH Field Implementation Team will be conducting field visits during the 

last half of calendar year 1995 to assess the compliance with and effectiveness 
of the PACFISH direction. 

If you have any questions regarding PACFISH implementation, please contact 
Mike Crouse or Gordon Haugen. We would like to reiterate that implementation 
of this strategy is one of our highest priorities . 



/s/ John E. Lowe 
JOHN E. LOWE 
Regional Forester 



/a/ Michael R. excuse for 

BLAINE Y. ZIELXNSKI 

State Director, Oregon/ Washington 



Enclosures (3) 

cc: 

PACFISH DRFS 

PACFISH FISH MORS 

PACFISH FWL DIRECTORS 

PACFISH-PLAN 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 1 



SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 

Identify conditions or activities (non- Federal actions) not addressed but which 
may be causing significant adverse effects to anadromous habitat or 
populations. These may include but are not limited to interaction with 
non-native fish, natural perturbations to the environmental baseline such aa 
mass failures or existing transportation systems. This will be useful in 
identifying and prioritizing future restoration opportunities . 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attahcment 1/Page 2 



PACFISH QiAs 



GENERAL 

1. What are tha proeeduraa for amending LRMPa/RKPfl/MyPa? The PACFISH EA 
amended the Foresc Plana to the extent of incorporation of PACFISH direction 
and amended the BLM RMPs/MFPs where the PACFISH direction was in conformance 
with the plan. Conformance determinations have since been made on the BLM 
plana and have resulted in tha determination that PACFISH direction is in 
conformance with existing plans, therefore, the LtJPs do not need further 
amendment. (FS see #2 in RCHAs/RMOs above.) 

2 . If existing LKMP/RMP/MFP ia more restrictive doaa it still apply? Where 
direction contained in existing plans is more restrictive than PACFISH 
direction the plan direction applies. 

3. As tha PACTCSH strategy ia interim in nature a nd will ba supplanted bv tha 
Baataida EcoavBtan Managemant Project (SHOOM and EISs, what ara tha 
conaeguencaa of a dalav in tha completion and implementation of this plan and 
EISs? If this situation were to arise two things must occur. First, the 
Decision Record (DR) for PACFISH Environmental Assessment (EA) must be 
amended. Second, consultation with tha National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) must be reinitiated and a Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the NMFS. 

4. As the California National ?oreata and BLM Dis tricts are outside the 
geographical scope of tha EBMF and EISA what a re the options for long-tin 
JJSBJ «""- ntation7 In California, tha BLM and FS have solicited public comments 
on the development of a long-term management strategy for anadromous fish 
producing watersheds which will be used to determine tha app ro priate level of 
NKPA analysis and interagency coordination necessary to insure consistent 
implementation. The level of NEPA analysis determined appropriate, based on 
results of analysis of public comments and existing management dir ection, will 
focua tha options available for long-term implementation. Some possible 
options ara addressed in the California BLM and FS Notice for Public Comment 
found in Appendix H of the PACFISH EA. 

5 . Hoy will laplemantatlon of tha PAC7ISH strategy ba funded? In the 
short-term (i.e., FY95) implementation will have to be funded out of available 
base funding. Over the longer-term (i.e., FY96) -tha FS Regional Fisheries 
Program Managers have prepared budget documents requesting additional funding 
for impl eme n t ation. The BLM Anadromous Fish Habitat Management and Funding 
Strategy for tha Columbia and Snake River Basins currently used in out year 
budget planning adequately addresses costs of implementing the PACFISH- 
strategy. 

RIPARIAN HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS (RHCAa) & RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 
(KMOa) 

1. How will RHCAa ba delineated? This will ba appropriate to the level of 
implementation for which tha RHCAa are being delineated. For example, at the 
broad planning level (i.e., LRMP/RMPs) the RHCAa would be delineated on maps or 
GIS themes at scales appropriate to the geographic scope of the plan. Hovever 
as this level of delineation can be grossly imprecise, project level planning 
and implementation would require more precise methods ranging from delineation 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 3 



on smaller scale maps to actual on the ground delineation (i.e. boundary tags 
within timber harvest units) . 

2. What flexibility is allowed in refining and/or modifying Riparian 
Management Objectives (RHOa) and Riparian Habitat Conaaryntion Areas (RHCAs) ; 
can they ba adjusted in tha 18 month period of tima; what is the proceag for 
making theaa adjustments? RMOs and RHCAs can be adjusted to meet local 
conditions. When adjustments are to be made in any of these two elements, it 
is to be done as a result of either a site-specific analysis or a watershed 
scale analysis (a watershed scale analysis is required when designated critical 
habitat could be affected) . This must be documented in the NEPA process (e.g., 
project EA) . These changes in RMOs and RHCAs re quire additiona l amendments to 
the forest plan. Documentation of these amendments must be mad e in the project 
level NSPA decision documents. A watershed scale analysis would follow the 
current approved version of the "Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis." 
However, it c an be project driven and the degree of detail required should be 
commensurate with the project involved. For example, a watershed scale 
analysis driven by proposed road contraction within an RHCA would examine such 
t hin gs as the amount of large wood in the system at the watershed scale and the 
source and transport processes at work and the condition of spawning gravels 
and the source and transport processes, for gravels and sediments within the 
watershed. This information would then be used in the location and design of 
tha road or even to make the decision that new road construction would be too 
impactive to fiah habitat. The key is expanding the analysis away from tha 
reach specific level to tha watershed scale without becoming trapped in a .. 
search for data or detail extraneous to the issue and/or question being 
addressed. Tha watershed scale analysis is not to be construed as a procedure 
which will take immense amounts of time and staffing. Forests and BLM 
Districts should not view watershed analysis as a barrier to accomplis hin g 
field activities. Also see response to question #3 under RHCAs and RMOs and 
question #1 under StGs. 

3. Who approve changea in RHCAa and RMOs and what if any ovaraight will thsre 
be? The line manager responsible for the. geographic area involved, typically 
the FS District Ranger or BLM Resource Area Manager, has final decision 
authority for changes in RHCAs or RMOs. Of course, any changes must follow 
procedures outlined in the strategy (see pages C-7 and C-5 respectively) . To 
ensure consistency in application of these procedures the PACFISH 
Implementation Team has established review procedures . See attached 
"Documentation Form for Changes to Interim PACFISH RMOs and/or RHCAs" 
(Enclosure A). This form describes justification, needed to modify RMOs and/or 
RHCAs, the approval process,, and review process. The form will be completed 
» n H forwarded to the appropriate contact listed on the form. The PACFISH 
Quality Control Review Team will provide review back to the line manager within 
3 days of receipt of the Documentation Form. The review will include a 
critique of the justification and will recommend ways to improve the 
modification process in the future, if necessary. 

■4. How >d.ll 100 year floodpl&ina be determined? Where the 100 year floodplain 
has been officially designated (i.e., COE, FEMA, etc.) this delineation should 
be used. Where this h»" not been accomplished and if potential affects would 
dictate such an intensive effort (e.g., facilities construction) a similar 
methodology should be used. For other actions tha fallowing general definition 
should be applied: the 100-year floodplain would be comprised of the area 
inundated by a stream flow equal 2 1/2 to 3 times the maximum bank full depth. 
Additional guidance will be provided at a later date. 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 4 



5 . How do you refine RHOs to incorporate natural variability such aa 
catastrophic events? Catastrophic events often do help shape habitat features 
described by the RMOs. However, this should be only considered when analyzing 
whether existing conditions are a result of human induced changes or simply 
long-term watershed processes. For example, if the large wood component of a 
watershed is outside the range specified in the PACFISH strategy then one must 
examine how large wood is normally supplied to the system. If catastrophic 
events such as landslides or blowdown appear to be the major sources for large 
wood then the existing conditions must be considered in the context of the 
timing of these events . 

STANDARDS ANP GTJTDKLINB3 

1. Ii a watershed analysis reguirad prior to either salvage harvest or road 
construc tion within RHCAa7 TM-1 only requires a watershed analysis in 
watersheds with, listed salmon or designated critical habitat. RF-2a states 
that no new roads will be built in RHCAs until watershed analysis is 
completed. Both of these SfcGs layout clear and concise direction. Several 
Forest3 indicated that this was going to be hardship and they cannot accomplish 
this. However, this should not ba viewed as an impossible barrier to 
implementation of FS or BLM activities . 

2. How ar» road managemsnt pro-tacts which Increase sediment delivery to gtre«m 
OT*r the short-term but are intended to c orrect erosion aourcea to reduce - 
sediment delivery over the long-term addressed? When analyzing any action, not 
just roads, both short- and long-term effects must ba considered and managed. 
While short-term effects must not ba great e no ugh to jeopardize the fish 
population affected, avoidance of all short-term effects should not ba allowed 
to preclude management changes or restoration actions necessary for the 
long-term recovery of habitats and/or populations. 

3. Clarify prohibition of the aidecasting of snow within or abutting RHCAs in 
watersheds containing designated critical habitat for listed anadromoua fish 

(RF-2 f .) . This includes the obvious, snow containing soil and road surface 
materials. However, it is also intended to address f h* creation of barms or 
piles of snow which in melting or acting as barriers would concentrate malt 
water resulting in destabilized strearabanks through saturation conditions 
elevated above "normal" conditions or actual hydraulic damage from flowing 
water. 

4. Clarify FM-4 (pre scribed burns) . Any prescribed fire, including natural or 
accidental starts which are essentially managed as prescribed firea, either 
entirely within or including RHCAs must be managed under prescriptions which 
contribute to attainment of the RMOs of the particular RHCAs affected. 

5. To who and whan is the re port on the imp lamentation of the Road Management 
Plans to be sent? In watersheds containing listed anadromous fish or ■ 
designated critical habitat the annual monitoring report to the NMFS will 
report on progress towards completing the plans . The plans will be • provided to 
the NMFS when completed, however, there is no requirement to complete them 
within the lifespan of the strategy. The BO does include the conservation 
recommendation that the "FS and BLM should attempt, to tfaa extent practicable, 
to complete Road Management Plans and Transportation Management Plans within 
the period of PACFISH implementation." In watersheds without listed anadromous 
fish or designated critical habitat there is no requirement in PACFISH to 
report on implementation of road management plans . Here normal public 
involvement procedures should be followed to ensure full public input. 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 5 



6 . Can PACFISH road S&Ga ba implemented prior to completion of Road Hanaowntnt 
Plans? It is expecceci that implementation of S&Gs pertaining to roads will 
begin immediately. The Road management plana will serve to provide a 
documented plan for accomplishing PACFISH objectives through road management 
and should be completed as quickly as possible but should not hold up 
implementation of actions designed to minimize impacts of roads on aquatic 
habitat. 

7 . Doea RT-2 c. 5. ( "regulation of traffic during wet periods") require the 
cloning of theea roada? No, the "regulation of traffic" is expected to range 
from prohibiting use by certain classes of vehicles (e.g. heavy trucks) to 
complete closure to all traffic including ATVs. 

8. When is reconatruction/maintenance considered ai "new construction' (i.e., 
PACFISH SfcOa must ba applied) ? The practical test should be whether the impact 
from maintenance or reconstruction is similar in magnitude to those occurring 
from initial construction. If so, then reconstruction/maintenance should be 
considered to be new construction. In any event, road reconstruction and 
mainte nan ce c ann ot retard or prevent the attainment of RMOa . 

9. Axe utreta forda conaidered Btream croasinas (RT-4)7 Yes. It is expected 
that such things as armoring of approaches and streambed to reduce 
sedimentation from traffic or erosion from high flows would be addressed. 

10. Can forest or District elect to proceed with a timber sale without 
upgrading culverts to meet R?-47 Yes, unless upgrading culverts that pose a 
substantial risk to riparian condition is a part of road reconstruction tied to 
the timber sale. Otherwise, requirements to meet S&Gs are not tied to any 
particular action. However, it would be prudent and logical to use any 
available opportunity that a project (such as a timber sale) might offer to 
upgrade culverts or comply with other S&Gs. If there is no opportunity to 
upgrade culverts as part of the project, then the FS/BLM would proceed to 
comply with PACFISH S&Gs based on other available opportunities and based on 
the degree of threat posed by the culverts . Upgrading culverts that pose a 
substantial risk to riparian condition should, of course, be a part of any road 
reconstruction or maintenance project. 

11. Will ROW applicant be required to app ly PACTI SH S&Qa before hauling oyer. 
yg/BLM R0W7 In general, yes, if a FS/BLM permit ia required, the permittee 
should comply with applicable PACFISH S&Ga. Remember, PACFISH does not., apply 
to private lands . 

12. When, if aver, doea an on-going project become a n«-w project as ^T^TralTliT^ 
bv PACFISH? For the purposes of PACFISH implementation any project meeting the 
teat of an on-going project will be considered to remain an on-going project 

if it i3 the same as what was in place at the time of PACFISH signature (Feb. 
24, 1995) . If this condition cannot be met, the project should be treated as a 
new project, i.e., PACFISH S&Ga applied. 

For the purposes of Section 7 consultation an on-going project for which a new 
permit or lease is issued will be treated as a new action and require 
reinitiation of consultation prior to issuance. 

However, if the project meets the criteria for an on-going project under 
PACFISH (see first part of this response) then it is expected that consultation 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 6 



would be quickly accomplished byn tiering to the previous consultation 
documents . 

13 . What ia m»ant bv Retard Attainment of RMOa aa related to grazing S&Gn? 
The RMOa established by PACFISH describe habitat features which exhibit change 
relatively slowly, thereby, making it difficult, if not impossible, to detect 
change with the 18-month lifespan of PACFISH. Since the condition of the 
riparian vegetative community directly affects these RMOs and changes in 
riparian vegetation are generally detectable within short time periods, the 
recovery of the vegetation component of the riparian system will be used to 
predict whether grazing will ultimately degrade, retard, or prevent the 
attainment of the RMOs . 

If is important to understand that for changes in grazing systems to be 
meaningful, they must be in place over the long term. This appears to conflict 
with the short-term nature of PACFISH. However, management put into place 
through implementation of PACFISH would be expected to continue through the 
long term if it conforms with direction provided by the EEMP anri ICBEMP when 
these plana are completed. Baaed on the current state of knowledge of the 
effects of grazing on riparian and aquatic systems, it is expected that this 
would in fact occur. Therefore, the implementation of PACFISH can correctly be 
envisioned as the initiation of management changes over the next 18 months 
which will likely continue and whose benefits to aquatic habitat will become 
apparent through the long term. 

Enclosure B which provides a discussion on the effects of grazing on riparian 
systems and recommended guidelines is based on fVH h premise. These guidelines 
should be considered for livestock management outside watersheds with 
designated critical habitat or listed salmon. For watersheds with deaginated 
critical habitat or listed salmon, terms and conditions in the appropriate 
biological opinion must be followed. 

TSEHS 

1. Project; As used in the PACFISH strategy project refers to actions such as 
timber sales, grazing allotments, road maintenance (combined at the watershed 
level) , or developed campground maintenance (again combined at the watershed 
level) . Individual actions associated with these larger "projects" such as 
harvest units, road segments associated with timber sales, fences, reservoirs, 
grazing systems , or painting or repair of campground facilities would not be 
considered to be separate "projects". 

2. Pool; Main Channel Pool ; A scour or dammed pool that is a discrete 
fluvial (Blow to directed scour thread) geomorphic (dished-out channel bed 
depression) channel unit that occupies the majority of the wetted channel 
width. Main channel pools are bounded by a head crest (upstream break in 
slope) and a tail crest (downstream break-in-slope) . Main channel pools are 
used in the calculation of pool frequency, and for summaries of pool geometry, 
i.e. pool max-depth, wetted width and length, pool area and volume, 
width-to-max-depth, and residual depth. 

Pocket Pools : Small bed depressions, often <30% of wetted width, formed 3round 
flow obstructions (boulder, logs, irregular bank or bank vegetation, jutting 
peninsulas, within fast water habitat types. These do not represent main 
channel pools , and are not used in the calculation of pool frequency or- for 
summaries of channel geometry. 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 7 



3. Salvage : See TM-1 and current agency direction. The definition of salvage 
used for PACFISH will not differ from that currently in use by the implementing 
agency at the time of project implementation. 

4. Road: Travelway, currently or previously, used by motorized vehicles that 
affect or has the potential to a-ffect the hydrologic and/or sediment regimes 
within a watershed. 

5. Avoid: See PACFISH EA Glossary 

6. Avoid to the Graateit Extent Practicable/Possible: See page 51 of the NMFS 
BO for PACFISH (Appendix J of the PACFISH EA) . 

7. Substantial Risk: See RF-4 

8. Unacceptable Risk; See PACFISH EA Glossary. "Ttaacceptable Risk" screens 
are used to make final determination. 

9. Maaaurabla} Can be measured (detected) using commonly accepted scientific 
field methods. Use PACFISH monitoring procedures when available. In the 
interim see Section 7 Habitat Monitoring Protocol for the Upper Columbia River 
Basin dated June 1394. 

10. Wodifvi Make changes in project design (e.g., grazing system, road 
design, etc.) to ensure that the goals and objects of the PACFISH strategy are 

achieved. 

yar/ppioRiTT yanraflBa 

1. What are the criteria for what constitutes a watershed where " anadroaotn 
fish can be reestablished*? "Anadromous watersheds" would generally be 4th or 
5th field watersheds. Watersheds historically but currently not conta inin g 
anadromous fish would be considered as an "anadromous watershed" if the barrier 
could reasonably be eliminated. For example a major barrier (i.e., scale of 
Hell's Canyon or Pelton Dams) would be considered to mark the upstream limits 
of an "anadromous watershed" while a stream reach dewatered from irrigation 
withdrawal would not be considered as such. 

2 . Clarification of key watersheds for non-listed species. The PACFISH 
strategy only designated key watersheds where critical habitat for listed 
salmon had been designated. While providing for ^the designation of key 
watersheds outside designated critical habitat the strategy deferred the 
designation of those to geographically-specific environmental analyses already 
in preparation or to be prepared (see page 17 of the PACFISH EA) . However, 
this does not prevent Forests and Districts from stratifying watersheds for the 
purposes of prioritizing management opportunities based, on the criteria for key 
watershed (see Appendix C, page C-19 of the EA) . In fact this is encouraged 
where appropriate. 

3. As the boundaries of key vtarghidi in California have not been delineated 
what criteria will be used to dolineate those boundar ies? During the interim 
strategy period, USGS 4th field watersheds will provide the boundary 
delineations upon which "key watersheds" are defined where designated critical 
habitat for winter-run chinook salmon occurs. "Key watershed" designations for 
the long-term strategy implementation will probably be similar in scale to "key 
watersheds" identified within the range of the northern . spotted owl by the 
Northwest Forest Plan in California (e.g., generally 4th to 6th field). 



Eastside Draft ElS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 



WATERSHED ANALYSIS 

1. What ia tha scale of watersheds on which watershed analysis will ba 
performed? The PACFISH strategy follows guidance developed for the Northwest 
Forest Plan, i.e. generally watershed analysis will be performed on watersheds 
20-200 square mile in size. Projects on mainstem rivers with watersheds 
greatly exceeding this size criteria should be analyzed based on a subwatershed 
of appropriate size. This may at times result in the delineation of "analysis 
watersheds M which do not totally conform to normal watershed delineation 
conventions (e.g., front drainages). 

2. Should Section 7 watershed Bfta ba us«d ai an information/data source whan 
performing watershed analysis prior to preparation of epraxing NCTA documents 
within tha Snake River Basin? Yes, they should be used and the -NEPA documents 
should reference them. 

3. Whan ia watershed analysis required? See the S&Ga. 

4. Hpw mqcfa specific information is nwd«d for watershed analysis? Initially 
use existing information but identify missing data to be gathered and used in 
subsequent iterations. The level of information should be commensurate with 
the isauea baing addressed. Tha deciding official will determine exactly what 
constitute* adequate information. 

5. Wad to coat out and define watershed analysis. . It ia estimated that a 
watershed analysis will require from 4 to 6 weeks and $60K to $120K to 
complete. 

«. What wafrahed analypjg procedure will be uaad in PACTXSH and how doaa it 
compare to HEMAT and E1MF7 All three efforts are expected to utilize the same 
procedure, i.e. , Federal Watershed Analysis Guide. 

XONITORHTO 

1. Tacplemantation monitoring procedure* naad to ba better defined. 
Implementation monitoring, aa developed by the PACFISH Implementation Team, 
consists of three parts; a summary monitoring form (see Enclosure C) to be used 
by the interagency PACFISH Quality Control Team for follow-up random sampling 
of on-going and completed projects to verify if S-tGs and RHCAs were applied and 
to complete an annual monitoring report for all FS and BLM uni ts, a pre-project 
form for proposed changes in RHCA and RMO to be reviewed by the Quality Control 
Team, and a monitoring report providing detailed written «tt^ photographic 
documentation of all monitoring and inventory activities by specific watershed 
and like activities, including establishment of RHCAS, application of S£Qa, and 
progress toward attainment of RMOs . These procedures are now being finalized 
and will be provided as direction by early June. 

2. gffeceivenaaa monitoring procaduxea need to ba batter defined. The goal of 
effectiveness monitoring is to determine if applied PACFISH StGa are effective 
in protecting, maintaining, and restoring fish habitat conditions. Centralized 
team(s) are recommended to ensure that a standardized approach is implemented 
to facilitate consistency, timeliness, arid reporting. A core group consisting 
of scientists and specialists would design the monitoring strategy, anri 
regional teams would implement. The regional teams would be responsible for 
training, quality control, data processing and management, ^t* a summary 
report. Because all projects can not be monitored, a sub-sampling schema 

Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 9 



stratified by like geoclimatic channels tiered to the Aquatic Ecomap Hierarchy, 
grouped like disturbances, and a reach specific core sec of habitat variables 
would be used. A sufficient number of monitoring projects would be determined 
to adequately represent projects across the PACFISH area. Adequate sample 
sizes would be determined to ensure that monitoring would have the power to 
detect differences through time. 

NOTE: Field units need to keep in mind that monitoring for PACFISH 
implementation does not release them of other project implementation monitoring 
requirements not related to PACFISH. 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 10 



ENCLOSURE A 



DOCUMENTATION FORM FOR CHANGES TO 
INTERIM PACFISH RM03 AND/OR RHCAs 



Background: In general, changes to interim Riparian. Management Objective* 
(RMOs) and/or interim Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) widths must be 
supported by data provided in Watershed Analysis. In the absence of Watershed 
Analysis, PACFISH also provides for modifications to RMOs and/or RHCAs if 
watershed-specific or stream reach-specific data are available to support a 
change. Regardless, any changes to RMOs and/or RHCA widths should be 
documented and reported to the PACFISH Quality Control Review Team. Such 
proposed changes should be prepared and/or reviewed by agency fisheries 
biologist, hydrologist, and geomorphologist/soil scientist. The appropriate 
agency line officer (Forest Service District Ranger or BLM Area Manager) should 
document their approval of the proposals by signature on this form. This form, 
with supporting data and site-specific map(s), should be submitted as follows 
aa soon as possible following approval. 

For activities on Forest Service administered lands : 

Kerry Overton 

PACFISH Quality Control Review Team 

Intermountain Research Station 

316 E. Myrtle 

Boise, ED 83702 

For activities an BLM administered lands : 

Robert House 

PACFISH Quality Control Review Team 

Idaho State Office - BLM 

3380 Americana Terrace 

Boise, ID 83706 



Describe watershed/stream reach (attach map) 



Specifically describe proposed changes to RMOs and/or RHCAs (include on 
attached map) : 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 1] 



Do federally- listed salmon occur in affected watershed? 
Yea : No : 



If Yes, completion of Section 7 consultation is required by NMFS prior to 
impl emendation of any reduction in RMOs or RHCAs . What is status of Section 7 
consultation process : 



Provide rationale for proposed changes (attached Watershed Analysis and/or 
stream-specific data that support proposed changes) : 



Prepared by: Date: 



Approved by: __ Date: 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 12 



ENCLOSURE B 

RECOMMENDED LIVESTOCK GRAZING GUIDELINES 

KEY ASSUMPTIONS 

Influences of livestock grazing must result in riparian restoration at a 
minimum of "near natural" rates. We recognize that some environmental 
effects are inherent with the presence of livestock. However, we believe 
that "near natural" rates of recovery can be provided if we limit 
environmental effects to those that do not carry through to the next year , 
thereby avoiding cumulative, negative effects. 

* Adverse affect to aquatic habitat associated with livestock grazing can be 
avoided, and riparian restoration provided by controlling: 

season of use (tied to plant phenology and soil characteristics rather 
rfr*n calendar dates) ,- and 

amount of use. 

* Providing for the health, form and function of riparian systems should 
remain fh» focus of management efforts. 

* Stream gradient, inherent stability characteristics, potential vegetative 
communities, and type of degradation (i.e., vegetation vs. bank/channel 
characteristics) are important factors in determining restoration potential 
and guidelines that will lead to restoration. 

* Guidelines for developing allotment specific prescriptions can be 
identified at the programmatic level. However-, in general, the 
prescriptions themselves must be developed to fit "on-the-ground" 
conditions within the context of those guidelines. 

* In some definable cases , avoiding adverse affects can only be accomplished 
by suspending livestock grazing. These cases include problems related to 
ecological status. 

* Effective monitoring using specific measurement approaches , as well as 
administration are essential. 

PROGRAMMATIC GTTCDKLINKS FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING) 

As noted in the assumptions above, the goals, or desired outcomes of management 
efforts provide the foundation for the recommended programmatic livestock 
grazing guidelines . The guidelines and resulting site specific prescriptions 
are of value only to the extent they contribute to meeting these goals . The 
Environmental Assessment for PACFISH interim direction provides suitable 
riparian goals for the land management agencies (See PACFISH EA, APPENDIX, 
pages C-3 and C-4) . All management activities implemented, including 
non-livestock related activities, should contribute to accomplishment of these 
goals. 

Where these goals are met, the following on-the-ground attributes will be 
evident (See BLM Technical Note 1737-9, Process for Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition) : 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 13 



(1) Floodplains are inundated by relatively frequent events (i.e., 1-3 years). 

(2) Stream sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and pool frequency reflect the 
capabilities of the setting (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic 
region) . 

(3) Lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity (i.e., 
streambank stability reflects the inherent capabilities of the setting) . 

(4) The overall system is vertically stable. 

(5) Streambank morphology reflects the inherent capabilities of the ecological 
setting. 

(6) Upland watershed conditions within the allotment are not contributing to 
degradation of riparian habitation conservation areas. 

(7) Riparian vegetation characteristics: 

diverse age structure for woody species (where such species are a part 

of the natural system) ; 

plants exhibit high vigor; 

species present indicate maintenance of riparian soil moisture; 

streambank vegetation protects stream banks and dissipates enargy 

during high flows (i.e., consider community type composition, rooting 

characteristics, and plant density) ; and 

provide an adequate source of coarse and/or large woody debris (wfaare 

such debris is a part of the natural system) . 

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 

Based on the key ass ump tions previously outlined, the following guidelines are 
recommended for use in modifying applicable allotment management plans /annual, 
operating plans/project decision documents /instructions to permitees to provide 
a high degree of assurance that objectives for conservation and restoration of 
anadromous fish habitat will be met. 

These recommendations do not specifically address "priorities" for taking 
action. Taking action to conserve Columbia River Anadromous Fish is not 
optional. However, we believe priorities can be identified where there are 
insufficient resources to "do it all." Those priorities are as follows: 

1) Maintain or improve conditions, where the criteria for "late serai" 
ecological status are met or exceeded (i.e., it is easier to protect 
healthy riparian systems than restore degraded ones) . 

2) Adjust management practices, where the criteria for "mid-seral" 
ecological status are met but the trend is static or downward. This 
is especially important, where vegetative factors are primarily 
responsible for the "fair" rating (i.e., making adjustments at this 
stage is likely to prevent stream bank/channel damage of a lasting 
nature) . 

3) Adjustments in management practices, where the criteria for "early 
serai" ecological status are met, and primarily tied to deteriorated 
stream bank/channel conditions (especially in cases of severe c hann el 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 14 



downcutting where channel evolution has not re-created a floodplain) , 
may contribute little to the recovery of the system in the near term. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

* Continue current grazing prescriptions in pastures /allotments where 
ecological status is "late serai" (or better) based on either riparian 
vegetation or stream bank/channel conditions. Ensure residual herbaceous 
vegetation heights of at least 6 inches, and that no "condition thresholds" 
are exceeded. (See Key Definitions - Residual Herbaceous Vegetation 
Heights ) 

* Where ecological condition is "mid- serai, " limit grazing in 

pastures /allotments to provide at least 6 inches of residual herbaceous 
vegetation and to ensure that no "condition thresholds" are exceeded. For 
moderate and low gradient (i.e., Rosgen "B" and "C" channel types! 
channels, with substrates composed of medium to fine easily eroded 
materials, also limit use to early season grazing to provide for recovery 
of stream bank/channel characteristics. (See key definitions --early season 
grazing. ) 

* In pastures /allotments where ecological condition is "early serai", the 
following is strongly recommended: 

In moderate and low gradient (i.e., Rosgen "B" and "C" channel types) 
channels, with substrates composed of medium to fine easily eroded 
materials consider rest. 

In all moderate to high gradient stream systems (Rosgen "A" and "B" 
type channels) with coarse substrate materials that provide inherent 
stability, whose ecological status rating of poor is tied entirely to 
vegetation characteristics, grazing may be permitted if limited to 
early season use, residual herbaceous vegetation heights of at least S 
inches are met, and no "condition thresholds" axe exceeded. 

* Where early season grazing, as prescribed above, would result in adverse 
affects or is impractical mid- or late-season grazing may be alternatives. 
However, reeidual herbaceous vegetation requirements would still have to be 
met and no "condition thresholds" could be exceeded. 

* Appropriate "condition thresholds" will be monitored in all 

pastures /allotments. Results are to be reported on an annual basis, -ariri 
appropriate adjustments made to the annual operating pl ana . (See likely 
consequences of implementation of this recommendation in the following 
section. ) 

KEY DEFINITIONS 

Condition Thresholds : A number of indicators of impending impacts that would 
carry-over to the next years would be monitored during the period of use and 
act as "triggers" to prevent damage. These should not be exceeded anytime 
during the grazing season. The recommended triggers and associated threshold 
values are as indicated below: 

New bank alteration: bank instability that becomes evident after livestock 
grazing is initiated in a pasture /allotment in a given year. This assumes 
that early season use occurred following peak flows, when most of the 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 15 



additional bank damage can be tied to land use activities. The recommended 
thresnold is 5% of the lineal bank distance (includes both sides of the 
stream) . 

Riparian aroa alteration; two measures of riparian area alteration are 
proposed. Each keys on areas away from stream banks that are good early 
indicators of impending riparian damage. The first relates to use of 
"riparian islands'' - those portions of riparian areas slightly higher and 
drier than the rest of the riparian area. These are often dominated by 
Kentucky bluegrass. The recommended threshold is 25% of the areas with 
visible trampled soils or a vegetation height of 2 Inches , which ever is 
reached first. 

The second measure relates to livestock use of "riparian sinks" - those 
portions of riparian areas slightly lower and more moist than the rest of 
the riparian area. These are often dominated by carex species. The 
recommended threshold is utilization in excess of a vegetation height of 3 
inches. 

Riparian "island" and "sinks" are not significant components of all 
riparian areas . Generally only one of these features would be used as an 
indicator of impending riparian damage (i.e., the one that represents a 
significant component of the riparian area away for the stream side and/or 
which first shows signs of damage) . 

Woody vegetation utilization! proposed limitations on season and amount of 
use, suggest that woody vegetation utilization would seldom be of concern. 
Monitoring of this feature would generally be limited to those 
circumstances where the prescription calls for mid- or late-grazing or 
where there is a documented problem with woody vegetation utilization. The 
recommended threshold is 3 0% of the current year's growth, measured as 
incidence of use. 

Earlv Season Grazing : Early season grazing is defined in terms of the 
phenology of the vegetation. Early season grazing is limited to that period 
where upland vegetation is green but not drying. It typically begins about the 
second to third leaf stage and ends between boot and flowering of perennial 
upland bunch grasses. Caution should be used to avoid soil compaction and bank 
alteration from physical damage that can occur in some settings with s early 
season grazing. 

Ecological Status ; Al Winward, in Clary and Webster (1989) , defined 
"ecological status" as a measure of the degree of similarity between current 
vegetation and potential vegetation for a given riparian area. Our definition 
of "ecological status" adds to Winward' s definition, recognizing the importance 
of stream bank and channel features. Definitions follow for each of the three 
condition categories : 

Early Serai (Non- functioning) * 

Percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural 
community/composition < 25%; or, 

Stream bank/channel condition rating "poor." (See following rating 
system for rating stream bank/channel conditions . ) 

Mid-Serai (Functioning at risk)* 
Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 16 



Percent: similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural 
community/composition 2S-50V or better; and 

Stream bank/channel condition rating of at least "fair." 

Late Serai (Properly functioning)* 

Percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural 
community/composition >, 50%; and. 

Stream bank/channel condition rating "good" or better. 

* If similarity of riparian vegetation information is lacking or cannot be 
readily obtained, a similar vegetation rating methodology such aa BLM Technical 
Note 1737-9 (functional rating) can be used. 

Grccnline ; That specific area on or near the waters edge where a more or leas 
continuous cover of perennial vegetation is encountered. Natural plant species 
forming the greenline are composed primarily of, large, hydric species such as 
beaked sedge, Nebraska sedge, blue joint reedgrass, or other especially strong 
rooted species capable of buffering the forces of water at the bankfull 
discharge level. Disturbance activities, such as overgrazing or trampling by 
animals or people, result in changes to shallow rooted species such as Kentucky 
bluegrass, which have a reduced ability to buffer water forces. 

Late Season Grazing : Late season grazing generally begins after sugar storage 
in woody vegetation is complete and leaf fall has started. Upland plant seeds 
have shattered «"H mean air temperatures begin to cool. 

Near Natural Rate of Recovery : Synonymous with PACFISH requirement not to 
"retard" or "measurably slow" recovery of degraded riparian features. Further 
defined in these recommendations within the context of effects that "carry over 
to the next year." Any effect that carrys over to the next years is likely to 
result in cumulative negative effects, and measurably slow recovery of degraded 
riparian features. 

Residual Herbaceous Vegetation Height : Residual herbaceous vegetation height, 
measured at the end of the growing or grazing season (which ever occurs 
latest) , is used as an indicator of a systems ability to withstand erosive 
stream flows, filter sediment and build stream banks. Residual herbaceous 
vegetation height measurements are to be taken on those hydric species along 
the greenline with the capability to buffer water forces. (See above 
discussion of "greenline.") 

Riparian Capability Groups : Winward (1992) has defined bank stability 
potential based on percent stream gradient and substrate classes (Winward et. 
al. , 1992) . It is used in conjunction with the channel condition rating to 
determine ecological status. 

Stream Bank/Channel Condition Rating : One of two ratings used to determine 
ecological status for riparian areas (the other rating evaluates vegetation 
composition) . The following key is used: 

Stream Bank Sub-Rating: 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 17 



Meets or exceeds Che expected bank stability (baaed on Riparian 
Capability Groups). (3 points) 

la below expected bank stability by 5V or less. (2 points) 

Is below expected bank stability by more than 5%. (1 point! 

NOTE: Where channel type information is lacking, the following stream bank 
sub-rating may be applied as an alternative. 

Meets or exceed PACFISH standards for bank stability and lower bank 

angle. (3 points) 

Meets or exceed PACFISH standards for bank stability oj_ lower bank 

angle. (2 points) 

Does not meet PACFISH standards for bank stability or lower bank 
angle. (1 point) 

Stream Channel Sub-Rating: 

Meets or exceeds PACFISH standards for temperature,* pool frequency, 
and, width/depth ratio. (3 points) 

Meets or exceeds PACFISH standards for temperature , * and pool 
frequency, or. width/depth ratio. (2 points) 

Doea not meet PACFISH standards for temperature, * pool frequency, or 

width/depth ratio. (1 point) 

Total Stream Bank/Channel Condition Rating: 

Where : 6 - Excellent 
5 » Good 
4 - Fair 
<3 » Poor 

♦Consider temperature only where livestock grazing is likely to be a 
contributing factor to maximum stream temperatures. 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 18 



ENCLOSURE C 5/3/95 

GNH/RW 



ONGOING ACTIVITY SCREENING - PACFISH 
NON-LISTED ANADROMOUS FISH 

Introduction 

PACFISH requires that ongoing activities (projects) , outside the area of listed 
anadrotnous fish, within the area covered by the strategy be screened to 
determine if ongoing actions or groups of actions pose a unacceptable risk to 
non-listed anadromous fish. This screen is to be completed by July 1, 1995. 
If an "unacceptable risk" determination is made, interim standards and 
guidelines would be applied to avoid an unacceptable risk. For those 
activitiea that rank as "high risk," modifications will be made prior to the 
action continuing. Ongoing projects, considered not to pose an unacceptable 
risk will be allowed to continue, during the interim period, under the 
direction that wa« in effecc at the time of project approval, even if such 
projects are not fully in compliance with PACFISH Standards, guidelines and 
other provisions of the strategy. 

This activity is intended to gauge the effectiveness of ongoing Federal actions 
in maintaining the quality and quantity of anadromous habitat. It is 
accomplished by reviewing individual or groups of like activitiea against a 
■eriea of questions. The process will rely on existing information and tba use 
of professional judgement. The review ia to be accomplished by an 
Interdisciplinary Team, with final results and risk deter min ations made by a 
journey level fisheries biologist and reviewed by a line officer. 

Federal actions are defined (FSM 2570 and 40 CFR 1508.18) as any action 
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency. Ongoing Federal 
actions are defined as those actions that, prior to the decision notice for 
PACFISH, have been implemented, or have contracts awarded or permits is«ued. 

For purposes of this screen these actions include such categories aa grazing 
permits and AOP's, timber sales, road and trail maintenance, mining activities, 
and special use permits which are being reissued or which have an annual 
operation plan. Other actions such as management of dispersed recreation 
activitiea, water diversions, and special use permits w h i ch do not have an 
annual operating plan should be included if there is a potential adverse 
impact . 

An additional page (Supplemental information) is included to identify 
conditions" or non-Federal actions not addressed but which may be causing 
significant adverse effects to anadromous habitat or populations. This 
information will be useful in identifying and prioritizing future restoration 
opportunities, but will not be used to determine unacceptable risk. 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 19 



ONGOING ACTIVITY SCREENING - PACFISH 
NON-LISTED ANADROMOUS FISH 



Foreat/BLM Unit: 



Watershed being evaluated: 
Basin Name: 



Description of Ongoing Actions or Group of Actions that are being tested 
against screens: 



Fisheries Biologist Performing Evaluation: 



Telephone Number : ^^ Date: 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 20 



DETAILED SCREENING PROCESS 

CHECKLIST 

Respond with a Y (Yes) or N (No) to each component of the following question. 
Provide a brief rationale for responses, (i.e., Cite the applicable references 
to support your response. In the absence of data, document the professional 
judgement that supports the response) . 

1. Ia.it probable or foreseeable that the ongoing actions or group of ongoing 
actions would affect any of the following features of habitat (i.e., a yea to 
any element of this question may likely result in a positive response to the 
second question) . 

Migration, Spawning and Rearing Habitats 

Water quality (e.g., chemical, suspended sediment, temperature) 



Rational* : 



Water quantity (i.e., magnitude, duration, timing of high/low flow*) 
Rational* t ______ 



Juvenile or adult migration and passage 
Rational* : 



Quantity or quality of spawning habitat 
Rational* : 



Quantity or quality of rearing habitat 
Ration*-!* s 



Riparian vegetation (does the action degrade existing conditions) 
Rational- : 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 21 



Riparian vegetation (does the action retard recovery of vegetation) 
Rationale: 



Harassment of fish (including the results of increased human access) 
or physical disturbance of redds. 



Rationale : 



2. It is probable or foreseeable that any of the adverse impacts identified in 
step l, would be of sufficient magnitude to result in an unacceptable riak 
(likely to contribute to the need for listing of an anadromous fish 
population) . A determination of an "Unacceptable Risk" will be made for any 
ongoing action, or group of actions, that result in a positive response to the 
element in question 2. Note: An adverse impact to one or more of the habitat 
elements evaluated in step 1 may not result in a positive response to question 
2. 



Raduced anadromous fish growth or survival (includes increased 
mortality, reduced growth of fitness, reduced reproductive success, 
etc. ) 



Rationale : 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 22 



3. Use che following matrix to determine a relative priority for corrective 
action based on overall risk. 



Relative Magnitude 
(Degree/Extent of Impacts ) 



! High 
1 M*d 

I Low 



Relative Probability of Impact 
Occurring > 

High M£d. laa 

H H M 

H M L 

M L L 



NOTE: If "At Risk" populations are affected, the relative rating will be 
increased one category for Med or Low ratings (for example, a Med rating would 
be increased to High) . 



The following list of projects has been assessed and determined to have a high 
(H) , moderate (M) , or low (L) risk of effecting anadromoua habitat or 
populations. 



HIGH RISK 



MODERATE RISK 



LOW RISK 



Prepared by: 



Signature of Fisheries Biologist 



Date 



Reviewed and Concurred with: 



Forest Fisheries Biologist 



Date 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 1/Page 23 



United Statea Forest R-6 
Department of Service 
Agriculture 



Reply to: 2670 Date: August 14, 1995 



Subject: PACFISH Grazing Guidelines Revision 



To: PACFISH Forest Supervisors 



Enclosed is a revision of Enclosure B - Recommended Livestock Grazing 
Guidelines, sent to you in a memo dated May 24, 1995, providing feedback to 
questions raised at the PACFISH Implementation Workshops. Please replace the 
original Enclosure B with this revision dated July 31, 1995. It should be 
understood that this revision does not alter the intent or intended 
implementation of the subject guidelines as originally written but rather 
attempts to further clarify them to avoid possible misinterpretation. 

If you have any questions, please contact Ron Wiley (503-952-6418), Wayne 
Elmore (503-447-4115), or Don Nelson (503-326-5917). 



/s/Gordon Haugen 
GORDON HAUGEN 
Columbia River 

Basin/PACFISH Coordinator 

Enclosure 



Eastsade Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 2/Page 1 



ENCLOSURE B 



RECOMMENDED LIVESTOCK GRAZING GUIDELINES 
(Rev. 7/31/95) 



KEY ASSUMPTIONS 



* Influences of livestock grazing must result in riparian restoration at a 
minimum of "near natural" rates. We recognize that some environmental 
effects are inherent with the presence of livestock. However, we believe 
that "near natural" rates of recovery can be provided if we limit 
environmental effects to those that do not carry through to the next year , 
thereby avoiding cumulative, negative effects. 

* Adverse affect to aquatic habitat associated with livestock grazing can be 
avoided, and riparian restoration provided by controlling: 

season of use (tied to plant phenology and soil characteristics 
rather than calendar dates) ; and 

amount of use. 

* Providing for the health, form and function of riparian systems should 
remain the focus of management efforts . 

* Stream gradient, inherent stability characteristics, potential vegetative 
communities, and type of degradation (i.e., vegetation vs. bank/channel 
characteristics) are important factors in determining restoration potential 
and guidelines that will lead to restoration. 

* Guidelines for developing allotment specific prescriptions can be 
identified at the programmatic level. However, in general, the 
prescriptions themselves must be developed to fit "on- the-ground" 
conditions within the context of those guidelines. 

+ In some definable cases, avoiding adverse affects can only be accomplished 
by suspending livestock grazing. These cases include problems related to 
ecological status. 

* Effective monitoring using specific measurement approaches, as well as 
administration, are essential. 

PROGRAMMATIC GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

As noted in the assumptions above, the goals, or desired outcomes of management 
efforts provide the foundation for the recommended programmatic livestock 
grazing guidelines. The guidelines and resulting site specific prescriptions 
are of value only to the extent they contribute to meeting these goals. The 
Environmental Assessment for PACFISH interim direction provides suitable 
riparian goals for the land management agencies (See PACFISH EA, APPENDIX, 
pages C-3 and C-4) . All management activities implemented, including 
non-livestock related activities, should contribute to accomplishment of these 
goals . 

Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 2/Page 2 



Where these goals are met, the following on-the-ground attributes will be 
evident (See BLM Technical Reference 1737-9, Process for Assessing Proper 
Functioning Condition) : 

(1) Floodplains are inundated by relatively frequent events (i.e., 1-3 years) . 

(2) Stream sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and pool frequency reflect the 
capabilities of the setting (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic 
region) . 

(3) Lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity (i.e., 
streambank stability reflects the inherent capabilities of the setting) . 

(4) The overall system is vertically stable. 

(5) Streambank morphology reflects the inherent capabilities of the ecological 
setting. 

(6) Upland watershed conditions within the allotment are not contributing to 
degradation of riparian habitat conservation areas . 

(7) Riparian vegetation characteristics: 

diverse age structure for woody species (where such species are a 
part of the natural system) ; 
plants exhibit high vigor; 

species present indicate maintenance of riparian soil moisture; 
streambank vegetation protects stream banks and dissipates energy 
during high flows (i.e., consider community type composition, 
rooting characteristics, and plant density); and 
provide an adequate source of coarse and/or large woody debris 
(where such debris is a part of the natural system) . 

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 

Based on the key assumptions previously outlined, the following guidelines are 
recommended for use in modifying applicable allotment management plans /annual 
operating plans /proj ect decision documents /instructions to permitees to provide 
a high degree of assurance that objectives for conservation and restoration of 
anadromous fish habitat will be met. 

These recommendations do not specifically address "priorities" for taking 
action. Taking action to conserve Columbia River Anadromous Fish is not 
optional. However, we believe priorities can be identified where there are 
insufficient resources to "do it all." Those priorities are as follows: 

1) Maintain or improve conditions, where the criteria for "late serai" 
ecological status are met or exceeded (i.e., it is easier to protect 
healthy riparian systems than restore degraded ones) . 

2) Adjust management practices, where the criteria for "mid-seral" 
ecological status are met but the trend is static or downward. This 
is especially important, where vegetative factors are primarily 
responsible for the mid-seral rating (i.e., making adjustments at 
this stage is likely to prevent stream bank/channel damage of a 
lasting nature) . 

Eastside Draft EIS/Apx3-2 Attachment 2/Page 3 



3) Adjustments in management practices, where the criteria for "early 

serai" ecological status are met, and primarily tied to deteriorated 
stream bank/channel conditions (especially in cases of severe 
channel downcutting where channel evolution has not re-created a 
floodplain) , may contribute little to the recovery of the system in 
the near term. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

* Continue current grazing prescriptions in pastures/allotments where 
ecological status is "late serai" (or better) based on either riparian 
vegetation or stream bank/channel conditions. Ensure residual herbaceous 
vegetation heights of at least 4 to 6 inches, and that no "condition 
thresholds" are exceeded. (See Key Definitions - Ecological Status and 
Residual Herbaceous Vegetation Heights) 

* Where ecological status is "mid-seral , " limit grazing in 
pastures/allotments to provide at least 6 inches of residual herbaceous 
vegetation and to ensure that no "condition thresholds" are exceeded. For 
moderate and low gradient (i.e., Rosgen "B" and "C" channel types) 
channels, with substrates composed of medium to fine easily eroded 
materials, also limit use to early season grazing to provide for recovery 
of stream bank/channel characteristics. (See Key Definitions - Early 
Season Grazing) 

* In pastures/allotments where ecological status is "early serai", the 
following is strongly recommended: 

In moderate and low gradient (i.e., Rosgen "B" and "C" channel 
types) channels, with substrates composed of medium to fine easily 
eroded materials, consider rest. 

In all moderate to high gradient stream systems (Rosgen "A" and "B n 
type channels) with coarse substrate materials that provide inherent 
stability, whose ecological status rating of early serai is tied 
entirely to vegetation characteristics, grazing may be permitted if 
limited to early season use, residual herbaceous vegetation heights 
of at least 6 inches are met, and no "condition thresholds" are 
exceeded. 

* Where early season grazing, as prescribed above, would result in adverse 
affects or is impractical, mid- or late-season grazing may be 
alternatives. However, residual herbaceous vegetation requirements would 
still have to be met and no "condition thresholds" could be exceeded. 

* Appropriate "condition thresholds" will be monitored in all 
pastures/allotments. Results are to be reported on an annual basis, and 
appropriate adjustments made to the annual operating plans. (See likely 
consequences of implementation of this recommendation in the following 
section. ) 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 2/Page 4 



KEY DEFINITIONS 

Condition Thresholds : A number of indicators of impending impacts that would 
carry over to the next year would be monitored during the period of use and act 
as "triggers" to prevent damage. These should not be exceeded anytime during 
the grazing season. The recommended triggers and associated threshold values 
are as indicated below: 

New bank alteration: bank instability that becomes evident after livestock 
grazing is initiated in a pasture/allotment in a given year. This assumes 
that early season use occurred following peak flows, when most of the 
additional bank damage can be tied to land use activities . The recommended 
threshold is 5% of the lineal bank distance (includes both sides of the 
stream) . 

Riparian area alteration: two measures of riparian area alteration are 
proposed. Each keys on areas away from stream banks that are good early 
indicators of impending riparian damage. The first relates to use of 
"riparian islands" - those portions of riparian areas slightly higher and 
drier than the rest of the riparian area. These are often dominated by 
Kentucky bluegrass . The recommended threshold is 25% of the areas with 
visible trampled soils or a vegetation height of 2 inches, which ever is 
reached first. 

The second measure relates to livestock use of "riparian sinks" - those 
portions of riparian areas slightly lower and more moist than the rest of 
the riparian area. These are often dominated by carex species. The 
recommended threshold is utilization in excess of a vegetation height of 3 
inches . 

Riparian "island" and "sinks" are not significant components of all 
riparian areas. Generally only one of these features would be used as an 
indicator of impending riparian damage (i.e., the one that represents a 
significant component of the riparian area away from the stream side and/or 
which first shows signs of damage) . 

Woody vegetation utilization: proposed limitations on season and amount of 
use, suggest that woody vegetation utilization would seldom be of concern. 
Monitoring of this feature would generally be limited to those 
circumstances where the prescription calls for mid- or late-season grazing 
or where there is a documented problem with woody vegetation utilization. 
The recommended threshold is 30% of the current year's growth, measured as 
incidence of use. 

Early Season Grazing : Early season grazing is defined in terms of the 
phenology of the vegetation. Early season grazing is limited to that period 
where upland vegetation is green but not drying. It typically begins -about the 
second to third leaf stage and ends between boot and flowering of perennial 
upland bunch grasses. Caution should be used to avoid soil compaction and bank 
alteration from physical damage that can occur in some settings with early 
season grazing. 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachmetn 2/Page 5 



Ecological Status : Al Winward, in Clary and Webster (1989) , defined 
"ecological status" as a measure of the degree of similarity between current 
vegetation and potential vegetation for a given riparian area. Our definition 
of "ecological status" adds to Winward' s definition, recognizing the importance 
of stream bank and channel features. Definitions follow for each of the 
categories : 

Early Serai * 

Percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural 
community/composition < 25%; or, 

Stream bank/channel condition rating "poor" . 

Mid-Serai * 

Percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural 
community/composition 26-50% or better; and, 

Stream bank/channel condition rating of at least "fair" . 



Late Serai + 

Percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural 
community/composition > 50%; and, 

Stream bank/channel condition rating "good" or better. 

* If similarity of riparian vegetation information is lacking or cannot be 
readily obtained, use BLM Technical Reference 1737-9, Process for Assessing 
Proper Functioning Condition, or other rating systems. In using the previously 
mentioned technical reference, the following approximate crosswalk may be 
applied to relate functioning condition and ecological status : 

Proper Functioning Condition - continue current management if 
monitoring data supports or use recommendations for late serai. 

Functional-At Risk, upward trend - continue current management if 
monitoring data supports or use recommendations for mid-seral. 

Functional-At Risk, static trend - use recommendations for mid-seral 
or early serai depending on site specific conditions. 

Functional-At Risk, downward trend; or, 

Non- Functional , use recommendations for early serai. 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 2/Page 6 



Greenline : That specific area on or near the waters edge where a more or less 
continuous cover of perennial vegetation is encountered. Natural plant species 
forming the greenline are composed primarily of large, hydric species such as 
beaked sedge, Nebraska sedge, blue joint reedgrass, or other especially strong 
rooted species capable of buffering the forces of water at the bankfull 
discharge level. Disturbance activities, such as overgrazing or trampling by 
animals or people, result in changes to shallow rooted species such as Kentucky 
bluegrass, which have a reduced ability to buffer water forces. 

Late Season Grazing : Late season grazing generally begins after sugar storage 
in woody vegetation is complete and leaf fall has started. Upland plant seeds 
have shattered and mean air temperatures begin to cool. 

Near Natural Rate of Recovery : Synonymous with PACFISH requirement not to 
"retard" or "measurably slow" recovery of degraded riparian features. Further 
defined in these recommendations within the context of effects that "carry over 
to the next year." Any effect that carries over to the next year is likely to 
result in cumulative negative effects, and measurably slow recovery of degraded 
riparian features . 

Residual Herbaceous Vegetation Height : Residual herbaceous vegetation height, 
measured at the end of the growing or grazing season (which ever occurs 
latest), is used as an indicator of a system's ability to withstand erosive 
stream flows, filter sediment and build stream banks. Residual herbaceous 
vegetation height measurements are to be taken on those hydric species along 
the greenline with the capability to buffer water forces. (See above 
discussion of "greenline.") 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 2/Page 7 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Oregon State Office 

P.O. Box 2965 

Portland, Oregon 97208 



In Reply Refer to: 

6700 (931) 



SEP 2 I 1395 



Information Bulletin No. OR-95- 499 

To: District Managers: Vale, Spokane, Prineville, Ukiah, Bakersfield, and 

Coeur D'Alene 

From: State Director, Oregon/Washington 

Subject: PACFISH Grazing Recommendations Revision 

Attached is a revision of Enclosure B - Recommended Livestock Grazing Guidelines which 
was sent to you as part of an interagency memorandum (BLM/Forest Service) dated 
May 24, 1995, providing feedback to questions raised at the PACFISH Implementation 
Workshops. Please replace the original Attachment B with this revision. It should be 
understood that this revision does not alter the intent or intended implementation of the 
subject guidelines as originally written, but rather attempts to further clarify them so as to 
avoid possible misinterpretation. 

If you have any quesdons, please contact Ron Wiley (503-952-6418) or Wayne Elmore 
(503-447-4115). 




MIC'HAEL R. CROUSE AtflMtf" 

Deputy State Director for Resource 
Planning, Use and Protection 



1 Attachment 
1 - Encl. B - Recommended Livestock 
Grazing Guidelines 

Distribution 

WO-330 (Room 204 LS) - 1 

OR-930 - 1 

OR-931 - 1 



Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 3/Page 1 



ENCLOSURE B - RECOMMENDED LIVESTOCK GRAZING GUIDELINES 
FOR USE WITHIN THE RANGE OF ANADROMY - PACFISH 

(Rev. 7\31\95) 



KEY ASSUMPTIONS 

* Influences of livestock grazing must result in riparian restoration at a minimum of 
"near natural" rates. We recognize that some environmental effects are inherent with 
the presence of livestock. However, we believe that "near natural" rates of recovery 
can be provided if we limit environmental effects to those that do not carry through to 
the next year , thereby avoiding cumulative, negative effects. 

* Adverse affects to aquatic habitat associated with livestock grazing can be avoided, 
and riparian restoration provided by controlling: 

season of use (tied to plant phenology and soil characteristics rather than 
calendar dates); and 

amount of use. 

* Providing for the health, form, and function of riparian systems should remain the 
focus of management efforts. 

* Stream gradient, inherent stability characteristics, potential vegetative communities, 
and type of degradation (i.e., vegetadon vs. bank/channel characteristics) are 
important factors in determining restoration potential and the guidelines that will lead 
to restoration. 

Guidelines for developing allotment-specific prescriptions can be identified at the 
programmatic level. However, in general, the prescriptions themselves must be 
developed to fit "on-the-ground" conditions within the context of those guidelines. 

In some definable cases, avoiding adverse effects can only be accomplished by 
suspending livestock grazing. These cases include problems related to ecological 
status. 

* Effecdve monitoring using specific measurement approaches, as well as 
administradon, are essential. 

PROGRAMMATIC GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

As noted in the assumptions above, the goals, or the desired outcomes of management 
efforts, provide the foundation for the recommended programmatic livestock grazing 
guidelines. The guidelines and resulting site-specific prescriptions are of value only to the 
extent they contribute to meeting these goals. The Environmental Assessment (EA) for 
PACFISH interim direction provides suitable riparian goals for the land management 

Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 3/Page -2 

1 



agencies (see PACFISH EA, APPENDIX, pp. C-3 and C-4). All management activities 
implemented, including non-livestock related activities, should contribute to accomplishment 
of these goals. 

Where these goals are met, the following on-the-ground attributes will be evident (see BLM 
Technical Reference 1737-9, Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition): 

(1) Floodplains are inundated by reladvely frequent events (i.e., one-to- 
three years). 

(2) Stream sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and pool frequency reflect the capabilides 
of the setdng (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic region). 

(3) Lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity (i.e., streambank 
stability reflects the inherent capabilides of the setdng). 

(4) The overall system is vertically stable. 

(5) Streambank morphology reflects the inherent capabilides of the ecological 
setting. 

(6) Upland watershed conditions within the allotment are not contributing to 
degradation of riparian habitat conservation areas. 

(7) Riparian vegetation characteristics: 

diverse age structure for woody species (where such species are a part 
of the natural system); 

plants exhibit high vigor; 

species present indicate maintenance of riparian soil moisture; 

streambank vegetation protects streambanks and dissipates energy 
during high flows (i.e., consider community-type composition, rooting 
characteristics, and plant density); and 

provide an adequate source of coarse and/or large woody debris (where 
such debris is a part of the natural system). 

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 

Based on the key assumptions previously outlined, the following guidelines are recommended 
for use in modifying applicable allotment management plans/annual operating plans/project 
decision documents/instructions to permittees to provide a high degree of assurance that 
objectives for conservation and restoration of anadromous fish habitat will be met. 



2 Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 3/Page 3 



These recommendations do not specifically address "priorities" for taking action. Taking 
action to conserve Columbia River Anadromous Fish is not optional. However, we believe 
priorities can be identified where there are insufficient resources to "do it all." Those 
priorities are as follows: 

(1) Maintain or improve conditions, where the catena for "late serai" ecological 
status are met or exceeded (i.e., it is easier to protect healthy riparian systems 
than restore degraded ones). 

(2) Adjust management practices, where the criteria for "mid-seral" ecological 
status are met but the trend is static or downward. This is especially 
important where vegetative factors are primarily responsible for the mid-seral 
rating (i.e., making adjustments at this stage is likely to prevent 
streambank/channel damage of a lasting nature). 

(3) Adjustments in management practices, where the criteria for "early serai" 
ecological status are met, and primarily tied to deteriorated 
streambank/channel conditions (especially in cases of severe channel 
downcutting where channel evolution has not recreated a floodplain) may 
contribute little to the recovery of the system in the near term. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Continue current grazing prescriptions in pastures/allotments where ecological status 
is "late serai" (or better), based on either riparian vegetation or streambank/channel 
conditions. Ensure residual herbaceous vegetation heights of at least four-co- 
six inches, and that no "condition thresholds" are exceeded. (See Key Definitions - 
Residual Herbaceous Vegetation Heights) 

* Where' ecological status is "mid-seral," limit grazing in pastures/allotments to provide 
at least six inches of residual herbaceous vegetation and to ensure that no "condition 
thresholds" are exceeded. For moderate and low gradient (i.e., Rosgen "B" and "C" 
channel types) channels, with substrates composed of medium-to-fine easily eroded 
materials, also limit use to early season grazing to provide for the recovery of 
streambank/channel characteristics. (See Key Definitions - Early Season Grazing.) 

* In pastures/allotments where ecological status is "early serai," the following is 
strongly recommended: 

In moderate and low gradient (i.e., Rosgen "B" and "C" channel types) 
channels with substrates composed of medium-to-fine easily eroded materials, 
consider rest. 

In all moderate-to-high gradient stream systems (Rosgen "A" and "B" type 
channels) with coarse substrate materials that provide inherent stability, whose 
ecological status rating of early serai is tied entirely to vegetation 
characteristics, grazing may be permitted if limited to early season use, 

Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 3/Bage 4 



residual herbaceous vegetation heights of at least six inches are met, and no 
"condition thresholds" are exceeded. 

* Where early season grazing, as prescribed above, would result in adverse effects or is 
impractical, mid- or late-season grazing may be alternatives. However, residual 
herbaceous vegetation requirements would still have to be met, and no "condition 
thresholds" could be exceeded. 

* Appropriate "condition thresholds" will be monitored in all pastures/allotments. 
Results are to be reported on an annual basis and the appropriate adjustments made to 
the annual operating plans. (See likely consequences of implementation of this 
recommendation in the following section.) 

KEY DEFINITIONS 

Condition Thresholds : A number of indicators of impending impacts that would carry-over 
to the next years would be monitored during the period of use and act as "triggers" to 
prevent damage. These should not be exceeded at any time during the grazing season. The 
recommended triggers and associated threshold values are as indicated below: 



'■oc*^ 



New bank alteration: Bank instability that becomes evident after livestock 
grazing is initiated in a pasture/allotment in a given year. This assumes that 
early season use occurred following peak flows, when most of the additional 
bank damage can be tied to land use activities. The recommended threshold is 
5 percent of the lineal bank distance (includes both sides of the stream). 

Riparian area alteration: Two measures of riparian area alteration are 
proposed. Each keys on areas away from streambanks that axe good early 
indicators of impending riparian damage. The first relates to use of "riparian 
'islands" - those portions of riparian areas slightly higher and drier than the rest 
of the riparian area. These are often dominated by Kentucky bluegrass. The 
recommended threshold is 25 percent of the areas with visible trampled soils 
or a vegetation height of two inches, whichever is reached first. 

The second measure relates to livestock use of "riparian sinks" - those portions 
of riparian areas slightly lower and more moist than the rest of the riparian 
area. These are often dominated by carex species. The recommended 
threshold is utilization in excess of a vegetation height of three inches. 

Riparian "islands" and "sinks" are not significant components of all riparian 
areas. Generally, only one of these features would be used as an indicator of 
impending riparian damage (i.e., the one that represents a significant 
component of the riparian area away from the stream side and/or which first 
shows signs of damage). 

Woody vegetation utilization: Proposed limitations on season and amount of 
use suggest that woody vegetation utilization would seldom be of concern. 

4Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 3/Page 5 



Monitoring of this feature would generally be limited to those circumstances 
where the prescription calls for mid- or late-season grazing, or where there is 
a documented problem with woody vegetation utilization. The recommended 
threshold is 30 percent of the current year's growth, measured as incidence of 
use. 

Early Season Grazing : Early season grazing is defined in terms of the phenology of the 
vegetation. Early season grazing is limited to that period when upland vegetation is green 
but not drying. It typically begins about the second-to-third leaf stage and ends between boot 
and flowering of perennial upland bunch grasses. Caution should be used to avoid soil 
compaction and bank alteration from physical damage that can occur in some settings with 
early season grazing. 

Ecological Status : Al Winward, in Clary and Webster (1989), defined "ecological status" as 
a measure of the degree of similarity between current vegetation and potential vegetation for 
a given riparian area. Our definition of "ecological status" adds to Winward's definition, 
recognizing the importance of streambanlc and channel features. Definitions follow for each 
of the three condition categories: 



Early Serai * 

Percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural 
community/composition less than 25 percent; or, 

Streambank/channel condition rating "poor." (See following rating system for 
rating streambank/channel conditions.) 

Mid-Serai * 

Percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural 
community/composition 26-50 percent or better; and 

Streambank/channel condition rating of at least "fair." 

Late Serai * 

Percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural 
community/composition greater than 50 percent; and, 

Streambank/channel condition rating "good" or better. 



* If similarity of riparian vegetation information is lacking or cannot be readily obtained, 
use BLM Technical Reference 1737-9, Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition, 
or other rating system. 

Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 3/Page 6 

5 



In using the previously mentioned technical reference, the following approximate crosswalk 
may be applied to relate functioning condition and ecological status: 

Proper Functioning Condition - Continue current management if supported by 
monitoring data or use recommendations for late serai. 

Functional-At-Risk, upward trend - Continue current management if supported 
by monitoring data or use recommendations for mid-serai. 

Functional-At-Risk, static trend - Use recommendations for mid-serai or early 
serai depending on site-specific conditions. 

Non-Functional, use recommendations for early serai. 



Greenline : That specific area on or near the water's edge where a more or less continuous 
cover of perennial vegetation is encountered. Natural plant species forming the greenline are 
composed primarily of large, hydric species such as beaked sedge, Nebraska sedge, bluejoint 
reedgrass, or other especially strong rooted species capable of buffering the forces of water 
at the bankfull discharge level. Disturbance activities, such as overgrazing or trampling by 
animals or people, result in changes to shallow, rooted species such as Kentucky bluegrass, 
which have a reduced ability to buffer water forces. 

Late Season Grazing : Late season grazing generally begins after sugar storage in woody 
vegetation is complete and leaf fall has started. Upland plant seeds have shattered, and mean 
air temperatures begin to cool. 

Near Natural Rate of Recovery : Synonymous with the PACFISH requirement not to "retard" 
or "measurably slow" recovery of degraded riparian features. Further defined in these 
recommendations within the context of effects that "carry over to the next year." Any effect 
that carries over to the next year is likely to result in cumulative negative effects and 
measurably slow recovery of degraded riparian features. 

Residual Herbaceous Veeetation Height : Residual herbaceous vegetation height, measured at 
the end of the growing or grazing season (whichever occurs last), is used as an indicator of a 
system's ability to withstand erosive streamflows, filter sediment, and build streambanks. 
Residual herbaceous vegetation height measurements are to be taken on those hydric species 
along the greenline with the capability to buffer water forces. (See above discussion of 
"greenline.") 



g Eastside Draft EIS/Apx 3-2 Attachment 3/Page 7 



Appendix 3-3 

Alternative 

Development 

Background 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix L) 




Contents 

Concepts for Alternatives 284 

Goals for Alternatives 292 

Rationale for Alternative 5 296 

Mapping Process for Regional Priority Areas 296 

Rationale for Alternative 7 303 

Mapping Process for Reserve Areas 303 

Rule Sets 305 



■ ■'■■■■■■ ■. 



■■:-■.-■:■-: ■:■■: \WX<SSttiZ:l:K 



This appendix contains five segments which provide historical and chronological background on 
how the alternatives were developed. These segments are: Concepts for Alternatives, Goals for 
Alternatives, Rationale for Alternative 5, Rationale for Alternative 7 and Rule Sets. 

Concepts for Alternatives 



Introduction 

This section summarizes the 59 comments received from the Eastside EIS Team's March 1, 1995 
mailing. Conclusions and recommendations based on the comments are listed first, followed by a 
table summarizing each comment received. The representative quotes included in the table 
capture the essence of each comment. Also included is a summary of the concepts. 

Conclusions 

1. People tended to group the concepts in two general ways: those calling for restoration and 
preservation of habitats through reserves; and those favoring management to provide goods and 
services that benefit rural communities. 

2. Of those who expressed a clear opinion, approximately 60 percent favored restoration and 
reserves, and 40 percent goods and services. However, many people believed ecosystem 
management could accommodate both of these goals. 

3. Regardless of which end of this spectrum people were on, most people supported active rather 
than passive approaches, supported reducing the risk of large, high-intensity disturbances, and 
supported relying on public lands to achieve goals. 

4. There was little support for Concepts Q, O, E, and R. 

Recommendations 

1 . The central distinctions (active-passive and green-brown) appear to be understandable and 
make sense to people. These could serve as reasonable anchors for the range of alternatives. 

2. Combinations of these four anchors should be considered; an active green/brown, for 
example. 

3. The challenge is to develop "middle" alternatives that meet both green (presentation) and brown 
(production) goals. 

4. Temporal and spatial combinations of concepts should be considered (such as active green in 
the short term where needed, followed by a longer-term strategy, which could be any 
combination of passive/active and green/brown). 

5. Possible combinations of concepts: 
B, G, P, N 

D, H, J, K, M, N 
A, C, I 

6. Many of the statements people made could be treated as assumptions critical to an alternative; if 
you agree with the basic premise, the course of action is clear. We need to use assessment data 
should be used to decide which assumptions are valid and could serve as the basis for alternatives. 



Concepts 

A Allow natural processes to function with minimum human intervention. 

B Intensively manage lands to provide steady flow of goods and services. 

C Manage with minimal human intervention; consumptive uses where surpluses exist. 

D Active management to restore historic ranges of variability. 

E No action (included Rangeland Health, INFISH, PACFISH, Eastside Screens, Northwest Forest 

Plan]. 

F Fully fund and implement existing plans. 

G Produce commodities at 1985- 1990 levels to support resource-dependent communities. 

H Provide system of core reserves and corridors (Wildland Project Report). 

I Natural areas with minimal intervention; designated commodity production areas 
(New Zealand system) . 

J All lands managed as key watersheds: moderate and high hazard areas are priorities. 

K Preserve rare ecosystems, species, habitats and amenities on federal lands to minimize 
private land impacts. 

L Maximize full spectrum of recreational opportunities, with decisions made at local level. 

M Manage for non-commercial, personal uses and tribal interests, with lands restored to mid- 
1800s conditions. 

N Reduce risk of large, high intensity disturbances and restore pre- settlement vegetation 
patterns to provide range of uses and values. 

O Provide big game habitat to meet state strategic plans for big game populations. 

P Manage to address the interests of resource dependent communities, with mix of transition 
and tradition. 

Q Manage lands to meet goals in county comprehensive plans. 

R Pay for administrative costs with increased fees. 






Table 1, Summary of comments from March 1, 1995 mailing. 



ID # Comment by 



Likes 



Dislikes 



Suggested 
Combination 



2954 Harney County Soil & 
Water Conservation 
District 



B, P 



Summary Quote 



Public lands should be intensively managed to provide a steady flow of 
renewable natural resources and service from our public lands. 






3052 Spokane Home 

Builders Association 



2984 Cassia County (ID) B, F, G, 

Board of Commissioners P, Q 



2959 Oregon Department of F, H, I, 
Forestry K, L, N 



2938 Heppner, OR resident 



2936 Eastside Ecosystem 
Coalition of Counties 



2932 Eugene, OR resident A, H 



A, 


c. 


D, 


E, H. 


I, 


J, K, 


u, M. 


N. 


o, 


R 




A, 


c. 


E, 


G, 


M 


.9 







J, M 



B, C, D, E, 
F, G. I.J, K, 
L, M, N, O, 

P, 9, R 



Forest management plans must provide predictable levels of timber 
harvest so as to even out the wide swings in lumber prices that 
destabilize the home building industry. 

Each use should be placed on a par with the others... to balance the 
competing needs of all the multiple uses on public lands. 



When formulating alternatives, legal requirements should be as loosely 
interpreted as possible so as not to constrain decision space... Funding 
levels and the likelihood of funding should be outlined clearly. (Also 
emphasized need for impacted forests and stands to be returned to 
better functioning condition) . 

Active management, adaptive management, and risk management... are 
some of the key components of ecosystem management. 

Site-specifically manage and protect for long term ecosystem health, 
stable and reasonable supplies of timber... and other commodity 
production, reduction of large, high-intensity disturbances, done in full 
partnership with directly affected county, state, and tribal governments. 

Unfortunately, we live in an era that coddles these short-sighted local 
interests, and a moderate proposal like the Native Forest Council's 'zero 
cut' is treated as wild-eyed fanaticism. 



2925 Ochoco Lumber 
Company, 
Prineville, OR 

2892 Jackson Oil, Inc., 
Canyon City, OR 

2895 Portland, OR resident 
and sociologist 



B, D, F, A, O 
G, P 



B, P 



M, E, F, Q 



J, K, M 



We need.... predictable outputs from federal lands. Businesses, 
communities, and individuals need some stability of the resources that 
they are dependent on. 

Public lands should be intensively managed to provide a steady flow of 
goods and services from public lands. 

Since dying communities are a fact of life, it makes little sense to 
continue shoring up forest- dependent communities at the expense of 
using up the last remnants of bits and pieces of ecosystems. 



2896 Tecton Laminates 
Corp., Hines, OR 

2919 Bellevue, WA resident 



2903 World Wildlife Fund 



B, G, P 



B, G, P 



289 1 Resident 



2890 Portland, OR resident 



2877 Liberty Northwest 
Insurance Corp., 
Baker City, OR 



B, P 



D, N 



B, P 



2876 


John Day, OR resident 


B. 


P 


2868 


Malheur Timber 
Operators, Inc., 
John Day, OR 


B, 


G, P 


2867 


Mt. Vernon, OR resident 


B. 


P 


2866 


Resident 


B, 


P 


2865 


John Day, OR resident 


B, 


P 


2864 


Gibco Heavy Equipment 
Parts, John Day, OR 


B, 


P 


2863 


John Day, OR resident 


B 


P 


2889 


Northwest Forestry 
Association 







2849 Timber Data Company, 
Eugene, OR 



B, G, P, A 



D, N 



Same as 2891 



. . . Naturally occurring bums are important in the ecology of the forest 
and clearcuts can take their place. 

Determine whether existing natural areas are sufficient for maintaining 
viable populations offish and wildlife... design mitigation to maintain or 
restore viable populations... determine how proposed management 
activities affect ecosystem integrity. . . provide alternatives to large-scale 
natural resource extraction activities that are consistent. 

Public lands should be intensively managed to provide a steady flow of 
goods and services. 

Classify lands into categories: substantially undisturbed areas (A, H, I, 
K, O); substantially altered areas (B, G, N); historically used to maintain 
local economies (B, others); historically used mainly for outdoor 
recreation (L, O). 

Same as 289 1 



Same as 2891 

All other options ignore the current and future requirements of human 
population in the planning area. 



Same as 2891 
Same as 289 1 
Same as 2891 
Same as 2891 

Same as 289 1 

My concept: a prudent manager who utilizes managed risk and sound 
land management principles to balance and optimize a wide range of 
products and services... There is much about federal land management 
that 'ain't broke.' 

For no-action, use existing plans as amended, not interim direction; 
use several baselines for comparing altematives--no-action, 4-5 year 
average outputs and conditions (pre-PACFISH and screens), L994 
outputs and conditions. 



Table 1. Summary of comments from March 1, 1995 mailing (continued). 



ID # Comment by 



Suggested 
Likes Dislikes Combination Summary Quote 



2846 Coalition for Canyon 
Preservation, Hungry 
Horse, MT 

2834 Omak, WA resident 



2833 Boise Cascade 



28 1 1 Richland, WA resident 



2810 Clayton, ID resident 
However, 



2809 Resident 



2806 Libby, MT resident 



2805 Libby, MT resident 



K 


Q, G, B, I, 




L, P 


B, G, I, 


A, C. D, E 


N, O, Q 


F, H, J, K, 




M, P, R 




A, H, I, C 



H 



A, C, H, 

J, K, L, 
M, O, R 

C, D, I, N 



N 



H, E 



2795 Roseburg, OR resident B, C, F, H, A, E, G, I, 

J, K, L, N M, O, P, 
9, R 



2773 Libby, MT resident 



C, D, H 



C, D, I, N 



Alternative concept Q is unlawful, unconstitutional, and unreasonable 
on its face and must be appropriately eliminated from scoping and other 
EIS literature. 

We need to utilize our natural resources at a sustainable rate and 
manage them for the greatest possible flow. Without the lumber, cattle 
and mining industries our lives would not be the same. 

A narrow range of concepts has been developed... The challenge is to 
explore a wide range of management strategies that display our 
knowledge of the ecosystem... a continuum from light active management 
through intensive active management. Good ecosystem management 
can provide for many objectives. 

We must swing the pendulum of relentless industrial abuse of our 
ecosystem towards restoring the environment we all depend on for life itself. 

Yes, some trees need to be harvested to provide wood products. 

some areas such as roadless areas need to be preserved as is to provide 
shelter for the natural animal inhabitants. 

A preferred alternative... will establish a healthy and fully functioning 
ecosystem, but will also allow for commodity extraction in a controlled 
manner... A transition period should be established to avoid fast radical 
changes in management. 

I am absolutely opposed to the planning effort. . . I believe it is 

illegal... National Forest Management Plans must be amended or revised 

on a forest by forest basis, not one huge planning effort. 

Your process is seriously flawed, patently illegal, and should be abolished. 

K is close to desirable except some areas should be harvested and 
thinned occasionally to typify natural fire of past history... Federal lands 
belong to all U.S. citizens. 

The four (main) concepts presented were obviously developed to 
implement an alternative similar to Option 9. This is very 
disturbing... Credibility? This process has none. 



2772 Friends of the Wild A, H B, C, P, G, 

Swan, Swan Lake, MT K, Q, R, D 



2769 Society Advocating 
Natural Ecosystems 



2761 Raleigh, NC resident 



Ranked concepts from 
most ideal (1) to most 
objectionable (18): A, H, 
K, J, M, I, N, O, L, D, C, 
R, F, P, E, B, Q, G 



2763 Valley, WA resident G, I, J, H, M 



2762 Concerned Friends 
of the Winema 



G, P, L 
K, L, N, 
O, P, R 



The Forest Service and BLM have caused many of the problems that are 
occurring in our forests. There is no reason to believe that intensive 
management will fix them, especially when the Forest Service has 
continually refused to monitor its previous management and learn from it. 

Nature and natural processes are far more effective and dependable than 
are bureaucratic tinkering or so-called 'active' management procedures. 



Education is the key. The forests, grasses, and elements of the earth can 
be harvested without major damage. The creatures of the earth, water, 
and air can live amongst these harvesting activities. 

Because the human species has placed itself in the role of 'manager' 
there is a moral— as well as selfish--duty to provide adequate and 
appropriate space for all our fellow species. We owe it to the seventh 
generation of managers to leave them something to manage. 

What I sense is missing from your project is some decent summary 
presentations on the adequacy of the public lands for sustaining viable 
population of a range of indicator species (especially old growth 
indicators) assuming that these public lands will have to assume the 
major burden for these biodiversity maintenance goals. 



2742 Wenatchee. WA resident 



F, I, J, N 



We should create a management plan that considers all capabilities for 
production on a sustainable basis... Demand for wood and grazing 
products will only increase. 



2741 Leavenworth, 
WA resident 



2740 Tonasket, WA resident 



A, C, H, B, D, E, F, H 

I, J, K, M G, L, N, O, 
P, Q, R-no 
foreign investors 



A, H, C 



B, G, Q, F, 
D, L, I, P 



2736 Moscow, ID resident 



A. H, J, K C, D, L, N, 



The multiple use approach has not worked well and is too often 
influenced by the resource extraction industry. . . Most Americans want 
preservation priorities. 



So it's still the same old wolf, now dressed in the sheep's clothing of 
'ecosystem management'... I thought this whole ecosystem management 
process started because land managers realized they couldn't continue 
the same commodity emphasis without breaking environmental laws 
and trashing non-commodity resources, most of which have been pretty 
well trashed already. 

The cost of restoring ecosystems to desired conditions is enormous and 
you're probably never going to get back anything near what you started 
with, especially in the eyes of an ecologist. Assess gaps and 
redundancies in protection afforded by existing natural areas. All 
ecosystem types should be represented within protected natural areas. 



Table 1. Summary of comments from March 1, 1995 mailing (continued). 



i : ? 



ID # Comment by 



Suggested 
Likes Dislikes Combination Summary Quote 



2732 Tacoma, WA resident 



2730 Mazama, WA resident 



2729 Salmon, ID resident 



(USFS retired) 



2728 Ecosystem Equity 
Council 



271 1 Staten Island, NY 
resident 

2719 WA resident 

2709 Kaniksu Bioregional 

Council, Sandpoint, ID 



2704 Resident 



2703 Small business owner 



2691 Joseph. ORresident 



N.D.O (add 
problems of 
non-native 
plants) 

D, H 



H 



A 



D 



A, C, D, H, 
J, K, M 
(H strongly) 



C 



B, E, F, G, 

L, P, Q 



E, N, P, H A, B, F, G, 
C, D, I, J, 
K, L, M, O 



A, C, H, J, K, O 
(sentences from 
each to make 
new concept) 



2681 Wenatchee Sportsmen's F, I, J, N 
Association 



C, H, K 

D, E, H, N 

F, I, J, N 



Grassland health problems such as caused by numerous non-native 
aggressive plants are equally important as forest health problems. 



No management plan we come up with can work unless human 
populations return down to sustainable levels. 



Adopt as a guiding principle that any alternative proposed must be 
based on sound scientifically credible criteria and let the chips fall 
where they may. 

There is no need to interfere with the natural ecosystem. The funds can 
be used more wisely in other areas. 

Timber communities are welfare communities. 

The primary concern of this project must be the restoration of the 
damaged ecosystems of the Columbia bioregion to a healthy state. 



I would like to see a concept that minimizes the economic benefits that 
just help a few people and maximizes improving ecosystem health; if 
economic benefits will result, they should be for many people. 

Minimal human intervention, ecosystem preservation, biodiversity 
reservoirs, low-impact uses, no livestock grazing on FS land. 

The words 'intensive human management' scares hell out of me as the 
high impacts of the past have been described with similar words. A lot of 
soft touch management would make this a viable concept. 

The ecosystem should be used on a sustainable basis for all its 
capabilities. 



u 






m 

til 

m 



2680 Richland, WA resident H 



2679 Seneca, OR resident 



The goal of ecosystem management must be to restore and then maintain 
ecosystems in a self sustaining condition with all its species intact and 
managed to pass such a healthy environment on to future generations. 

Make sure that alternatives are socially able to provide opportunities for 
all people, are capable of producing products simultaneously, and create 
a description of the type of landscape that will satisfy these needs on a 
sustainable basis . 



2660 Pritchard Appraisal 1 

and Farm Financial 
Consulting, Wilbur, WA 

243 1 BLM Lakeview District 



A, I, M, D, 
J, K, L 



E, F, B, G, H, 



We must 'farm' our high timber sites so we can retain larger acreage for 
other uses and still have the timber needed by society. 



Combine some and drop others from detailed analysis to create shorte 
list. 



Goals for Alternatives 

Purpose 

Goals are the foundation for developing alternatives because they describe what the EIS Teams 
want to accomplish. A set of goals common to all alternatives was developed because it was 
recognized that any ecosystem management strategy must simultaneously achieve a number of 
conditions and outcomes. This does not mean that alternatives will meet all goals equally; some 
will be more successful at meeting a goal than will others. However, all alternatives address the 
goals and meet them to some extent. The extent to which each goal is meant is part of the analysis 
of the consequences of the alternatives discussed in Chapter 4. 

How Goals Were Developed 

Seven preliminary goals were derived from the project charter, initial drafts of the Purpose and 
Need section of the Draft EIS, and public and agency issues identified through the scoping process. 
On April 30, 1995, this set of goals was mailed to people on the Eastside and Upper Basin mailing 
lists. Over 200 people responded, indicating a high level of interest. The seven preliminary goals 
and a summary of comments received on each are provided below (a more complete summary 
containing representative comments is available at the project office in Walla Walla). 

Preliminary goals 

1. Restore, sustain, or enhance the health of forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems on lands 
administered by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. 

People agreed this was essential, and pointed out that meeting this super-goal would result in 
the other goals being met, too. Nearly all comments requested definition of this goal's terms 
and more information about how, where, when, and by whom the goal would be met. Several 
people suggested combining the more-specific aspects of this goal (such as Goals 4 and 5) with 
this one. Several people commented on the exclusion of social and economic concerns from this 
goal: People had a problem with the word "enhance" in this context. 

2. Enhance the resiliency of rural communities by providing commodities and amenities within 
the capability of the ecosystem to sustain these uses. 

Most people agreed with the intent of helping rural communities, although a few people 
questioned whether this was an agency mandate. Many people suggested that economic 
diversity is the key to resiliency, rather than relying on outputs from public land management. 
People pointed out that economic benefits of public land management extend well beyond local 
residents and communities. Many asked for definitions of key terms such as "enhance, 
resiliency, commodities, amenities, and capability". People were concerned that this goal 
would mean continued exploitation of limited resources. As is the case with most of the goals, 
providing detail could address most comments. 

3. Maintain the integrity of important places and provide an array of recreational and 
educational opportunities for people to experience nature. 

There was widespread support for this goal, but equally widespread confusion over "important 
places. " People wanted to know important to whom, for what reasons, and how these areas 
would be identified and protected. 



4. Restore and sustain the function, composition, and processes of aquatic and riparian 
ecosystems so they can support viable populations of species dependent on them. Provide 
long-term direction that replaces PACFISH and the Inland Native Fish Strategy. 

Many people said this seemed like a subset of Goal 1 . PACFISH didn't appear to have wide 
support, and several people thought the last sentence was more of a bureaucratic statement 
than a resource goal. People who supported the goal proposed several ways of meeting it. 
People who opposed the goal said there is already more habitat than fish. Many requested 
definitions of terms such as viable populations. 

5. Provide an array of habitats, well-distributed across the landscape, that support biodiversity 
and viable populations of plant and animal species. Work toward recovery of species that are 
listed as threatened or endangered, and prevent the need for future listings. 

Again, many requested definitions of terms like "biodiversity, well-distributed, and viable 
populations. " The issue of active versus passive management surfaced here; many people said 
that nature knows best. People opposed to the goal commented that extinction is natural, 
people should come first (or be considered equally), or that we already have enough habitat. 
People favoring the goal emphasized protecting habitat for all species, providing adequate 
linkage of habitats, and minimizing land use practices that have negative impacts. Many 
people commented on the last sentence; people support the idea of preventing the impacts of 
listing and not letting species go to the brink; some stated that you still may have to list species. 

6. Provide natural resource management that meets treaty obligations for American Indian tribes. 

Fewer people commented on this goal. Many people believed in balancing these obligations 
with others, for example, if treaties required conditions that were not sustainable. Several 
commented that ecosystem management should meet the needs of all people. Others firmly 
believed that treaty obligations should be met. 

7. Implement ecosystem management in an open, cooperative, responsive atmosphere to involve 
agencies, groups, and individuals in monitoring and addressing resource issues on public 
lands-issues that often span administrative and ownership boundaries. 

There was widespread support for this goal; people were glad to see it. This support was 
accompanied by a healthy skepticism of the agencies' ability and commitment to carry it out. 
People wanted the details of how we'd accomplish this goal, to make sure a balanced, 
representative range of viewpoints was included. Many voiced concern that we not spend all our 
time talking about resource issues ~ things need to happen on the ground; one person said, "Yes, 
but talk is cheap ~ we need sound action." Several people suggested dropping the last phrase; a 
key aspect of alternatives is their assumptions and treatment regarding private lands. 

In summary, the most frequent comments were requests for definition, clarification, and additional 
detail about when, where, and how the goal would be met. It was clear that people needed more 
information before they could really evaluate the goals. They requested definitions of terms used 
and examples that clearly showed what the goal was designed to accomplish, and how. They 
wanted to see data showing what the Basin's ecosystem problems are, to better provide a context 
for interpreting goals. They wanted details, not broad statements that are difficult to interpret, 
could have many meanings, and sound like statements from other plans. 

Many people added general comments about the goals, and suggested wording changes to make 
the goals more specific and understandable. Some offered ideas for new ones, including a goal for 
public education about ecosystems, human impacts, and sustainability. Another common theme 
was recognizing our responsibility to future generations. Several people also wanted to see a goal 
that would reflect the role of private lands in ecosystem management. In general, many of the 
proposed goals were more-specific subsets of the existing goals. 



Final Goals 

Public comments were used to revise the goals, resulting in a set of five goals used as one of the 
main tools in developing alternative ecosystem management strategies for the Draft EIS. 

The goal regarding implementation of ecosystem management in an open, cooperative atmosphere 
was determined to be an implementation strategy necessary for goals to be met successfully. It 
therefore made sense not to include this as a separate goal. It remains a critical component of 
ecosystem management that will be addressed in the alternatives. 

The final goals, listed below, include more-detailed descriptions of why each is a goal and how it 
relates to the other goals. The descriptions also incorporate elements of the preliminary goals that 
were changed or dropped. The goals are not numbered by priority. 

Goal 1 : Sustain and where necessary restore the health of forest, 
rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems. 

Healthy ecosystems are necessary to provide long-term benefits for humans and all of the other 
species that inhabit and depend on the forests, waters, and grasslands of the project area. The 
affected environment chapter documents existing problems with the health and resiliency of 
natural resource systems in the project area. 

Current management often is contradictory to ecological processes because it focuses on mitigating 
effects on ecological processes rather than providing for them. For example, native grasslands 
have declined in the project area and will continue to decline, primarily due to additional invasion 
of exotic species such as cheatgrass. Natural processes create a mosaic of habitat conditions that 
support diversity, while current management tends to simplify this mosaic, resulting in a loss of 
diversity. Achieving long-term ecosystem health requires maintaining evolutionary and ecological 
processes such as nutrient cycling. This also requires adopting a much longer time-frame and 
broader geographic scale than typically used in making resource management decisions. 

Goal 2: Provide a predictable, sustained flow of economic benefits within 
the capability of the ecosystem. 

Sustaining and restoring the health of natural resource systems is viewed as the key to providing 
sustainable social and economic benefits desired by current populations while maintaining options 
for future generations. Many industries, communities, and people and their families have come to 
expect management of public lands to provide opportunities for employment and income. 
Predictability is important because it provides at least short-term stability while also providing lead 
time for people and industries to adapt to changes over the long-term. Sustainability is important 
because history has taught us that boom-and-bust cycles of natural resource development are 
socially and economically disruptive. Providing economic opportunities within the capability of the 
ecosystem is designed to prevent this cycle while ensuring continued availability of resources for 
the future. 

The effects of public land management on the economy of small, rural communities is especially 
important. Providing a diversity of economic opportunities lessens the risk associated with 
becoming dependent on a single type of good or service resulting from public land management. 
Ecosystem management should facilitate the process of community change so that externally- 
induced fluctuations in demand for various ecosystem outputs can be absorbed without causing 
unwarranted structural shifts in community components. Resiliency, or the ability to adapt to 
change, is a key to community health and vitality. When present, it provides the capacity for 
humans to change their behaviors, economic relationships, and social institutions to maintain 
economic vitality and minimize social stress. 



■ ■..:::::■;:..:■:::■■■■■.: 



Goal 3: Provide diverse recreational and educational opportunities within 
the capability of the ecosystem. 

Recreational opportunities contribute significantly to the project area residents' quality of life, as 
well as to the lives of people who visit the project area. These opportunities benefit people and 
society in many ways, from the personal benefits experienced directly by an individual engaging in 
a particular recreation activity to the many social and community benefits. People who do not 
interact with the environment on-site also obtain benefits from a natural resource base. 
Recreation, tourism, and related industries are among the fastest growing economic sectors in the 
project area, supplementing other sectors and helping to diversify local economies. 

State projections suggest that day use activities, trail use, camping and sightseeing will all 
continue to be popular throughout the four main states of the project area. In the future, the 
project area is expected to continue to have substantially greater amounts of available recreation 
resources than the nation as a whole. The greatest area of comparative advantage for the interior 
basin appears to be the undeveloped and partially developed land settings that provide 
opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive experiences. 

Goal 4; Contribute to recovery and delisting of threatened and 
endangered species. 

Many species closely associated with grasslands and upland shrublands have experienced 
significant declines and will continue to do so under current management. Species dependent on 
old forest structure have declined as their habitat has diminished: if this trend is to be reversed, 
federal lands will have to provide a greater share of habitat. Diverse habitats, connected and well- 
distributed across the landscape, will be necessary to meet this goal. 

The composition, distribution, and status of fishes in the project area also is very different from 
historical patterns. Some taxa are extinct and many others extirpated from large portions of their 
former range, and introduction of exotic species is in many cases irreversible. However, the core 
for rebuilding and maintaining functioning aquatic systems based on native species remains. The 
contribution of Forest Service and BLM-administered lands to recovery and delisting of species is 
typically only a small part of the total contribution, but is nonetheless an essential component. 

Goal 5: Manage natural resources consistent with treaty and trust 
responsibilities to American Indian tribes. 

The intense interest of the Indian population in the northern intermontane region is based on their 
long-term cultural attachment to the land. Although Indian societies in the region differ in many 
ways, they hold a common belief about their relationship to the land and water. The extent to 
which other goals are met contributes greatly to meeting this one. For example, habitat necessary 
to support viable populations is a prerequisite to harvestability. Disturbance regimes appropriate 
for biophysical settings will increase the abundance and distribution of plants and animals 
important to tribes. The length of attachment to the land and the totality of landscape importance 
has contributed a strong sense of place. Recognition of the sense of place in ecosystem 
management will allow federal agencies to better fulfill trust responsibilities. 



■ ■ 






Rationale for Alternative 5 

Mapping Process for Regional Priority Areas 

To allocate natural resource priorities under this alternative, Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs) were 
assigned to one or more regional management priorities. In keeping with the theme of this 
alternative, whole ERUs, or portions thereof, were assigned to a resource management strategy, based 
on a general understanding of the relative production efficiencies of one area to another. In other 
words, a comparative advantage approach was used to make resource allocation choices for Forest 
Service and BLM managed lands within the project area. 

In the context of this alternative, priority areas were established, based on multiple use at a regional 
level, as opposed to multiple use applied at the local level. This requires a prioritization strategy, in 
essence, that follows the philosophy "everything somewhere, but not everything everywhere". 

In order to gain an understanding of resource priorities that might be considered for each ERU, a 
"matrix" of resource values and ERUs was created. The EIS Team members each listed the five (5) 
highest priority ERUs for twelve (12) specific resource criteria. The distribution of these highest 
value ERUs was tallied, and are show on Table 2 (in one case, 6 priorities were made; in 3 cases, 
less than 5 priority areas were listed). 



Table 2. Areas of Management Priority for Regional Efficiency 

ERUs 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 

AQUATICS 

strong population with 2 or more salmonids 
narrow endemic species 
watersheds with high genetic integrity 
aquatic integrity 

RANGE 

human demand and investment in range 

MINERALS 

metallic locatables 
phosphate 

TIMBER 

high values 

WILDLIFE 

nongame, native, biodiversity, centers 

of endemism 
predator/prey relations, threatened 

and endangered species concerns 

RECREATION (willingness to pay values) 
primitive / semi-primitive 
roaded natural 



V 

V 
V V 




V 
V 

V 


V 


V 






V 

V 


V 




V 






V 


V 


V 
V 


V 




V 




V 


V 


V 








V 


V V 


V 






V 








V 






V 


V 




V 




V 


V 


V 




V 


V 


V 

V 


V 




V 


V 
V 






Results were then summarized by general resource category (such as wildlife, aquatic, timber, 
grazing, and recreation emphasis) , and EIS Team discussions took place to resolve perceived 
conflicts in resource uses, or if unable to do this, to map out portions of ERUs into subsets of 
ERUs. The result of this effort is the Mapping Zones. 

Regional priorities were not necessarily limited to singular uses, especially where multiple priorities 
are believed to exist compatibly. While some ERUs have such highly-valued resources, it is the 
conflicts in the allocation, or uses, of these resources that makes the need to have a prioritization 
strategy developed. 

In order to resolve broad-scale resource-use conflicts where they are believed to presently exist, 
whole ERUs are mapped into separate regions (priority areas). Where resolution of conflicting or 
incompatible resource uses (read: prioritization) can be described in narrative, it is so done 
through articulation of objectives, standards, and guidelines. An example of this occurs in 
Mapping Zone 4 (essentially ERU 3, Upper Klamath), where timber management is emphasized in 
forested vegetation, and wildlife management is emphasized in the large wetlands and shrub- 
steppe environments. Throughout, adherence to key watershed direction for protection of aquatic 
environments is required. 

In the previous example, conflicting resource emphases can generally be minimized by narrative 
description, as the timber and wildlife emphases areas typically occur in separate environments. 
Other competing resource uses are attempted to be resolved by mapping, as they occur in the same 
environments and cannot by resolved through a narrative format. 

The following mapping zones and descriptions describe in general terms the Regional Priority 
management approach. 

Mapping Zone 1 : North of upper Yakima 4th-Jield HUC (ERU 1) 

Emphasis: Aquatic, wildlife, unroaded recreation. 

♦ Compatibilities: all emphases appear to be generally compatible. 

♦ Conflicts: assumed to be minor. 



General Thoughts 

♦ FEMAT applies most everywhere, plus Chewack drainage is included as a Key Watershed with 
FEMAT-like standards and guidelines. 

♦Assume no new road-building in presently unroaded areas. Road restoration and closure a 
high priority to meet watershed/aquatic objectives. 

♦ Present roaded recreation infrastructure (roads, campgrounds, etc.) maintained, except where 
conflicts with watershed/aquatic/wildlife objectives. Where conflicts, infrastructure modified 
or eliminated to meet watershed/aquatic/wildlife objectives. 

♦Wildlife issues and concerns are: spotted owl areas, forest carnivores, large blocks of connected 
upper montane, biodiversity, and endemism. 

♦Timber management priorities: Forest health (1) urban/wildland interface; (2) meeting wildlife, 
recreation, and aquatic objectives; (3) forest health in currently roaded areas. 



Mapping Zone 2. Yakima drainage and south (ERU 1) 

Emphasis: Aquatics, wildlife, roaded recreation. 

♦ Compatibilities: these emphases are generally compatible. 

♦ Conflicts: potential for conflicts with roads and aquatics. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Present roaded recreation infrastructure (roads, campgrounds, etc.) maintained, except where 
conflicts with watershed/aquatic objectives. Where conflicts, infrastructure modified or 
eliminated to meet watershed /aquatic /wildlife objectives ~ but maintain overall recreation 
opportunities. 

♦ FEMAT applies most everywhere. May modify existing FEMAT Key Watersheds (for example, 
Cle Elum). Possibly add other Key Watersheds (Indian Creek) with FEMAT standards and 
guidelines. 

♦ Wildlife concerns are spotted owl areas, forest carnivore requirements (large, connected blocks 
of upper montane), biodiversity, and endemism. 

♦Timber management considerations: Forest health priority (1) urban/wildland interface; (2) 
meeting wildlife, recreation, and aquatic objectives; (3) forest health in currently roaded areas. 
May be more opportunities for forest health treatment because of greater existing road densities 
and compatibility with roaded recreation - but needs to be compatible with wildlife /aquatic 
objectives. 

♦ Possible entry into roadless areas outside Key Watersheds to meet recreation demand, as long 
as compatible with aquatic /wildlife objectives. 

Mapping Zone 3. Southern Cascades (ERU 2) 

Emphasis: Roaded (natural) recreation. 

♦ Compatibilities: aquatics and associated wildlife. 

♦ Conflicts: potential conflicts between roads and aquatics; conflicts with owls; Note also the 
occurrence of the high fire, urban-interface, protection zone. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Roaded recreation emphasis with Key Watersheds (Metolius, Upper Deschutes, 5th-field 
watersheds with threatened, endangered, or candidate species). Alternative 3-type standards 
and guidelines, but with provisions for recreation opportunities, including river-based 
recreation. 

♦ Present roaded recreation infrastructure (roads, campgrounds, etc.) maintained, except where 
conflicts with watershed /aquatic objectives. Where conflicts, infrastructure modified or 
eliminated to meet watershed/aquatic objectives ~ but maintain overall recreation 
opportunities. Recreational fishing opportunities will be emphasized. 

♦Timber considerations: Forest health priority (1) urban/wildland interface: (2) meeting 
recreation, and aquatic objectives; (3) forest health in currently roaded areas. May be more 
opportunities for forest health treatment because of greater existing road densities and 
compatibility with roaded recreation ~ must be compatible with aquatic objectives. 

♦ Not a wildlife priority area, but assumed compatible with aquatic needs. 



Mapping Zone 4. Upper Klamath (ERU 3) 

Emphasis: Timber and aquatics in forested environment. Wildlife emphasis associated with large 
wetlands and shrub-steppe. 

♦ Conflicts: Timber emphasis is generally not considered conflicting with wildlife, as the highly- 
valued habitat is shrub-steppe (for example, not forestland types). Potential for aquatics 
conflicts resolved through key watershed and current riparian standards and guidelines in 
Alternatives 3 and 4. 

General Thoughts 

♦Aquatics/wildlife protected with Key Watersheds and Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs, 
Alternative 3). In timber priority areas outside of Key Watersheds, perhaps minimal RMOs. 
This area is typically flat, roaded, dry forest potential vegetation types. 

Mapping Zone 5. Blue Mountains (ERU 6) 

Emphasis: Timber emphasis in currently roaded areas; Aquatics emphasis in currently unroaded 
(and low- roaded) areas. 

♦ Compatibilities: Wildlife is not a primary management priority, but is assumed to be 
compatible with aquatic needs. 

♦ Conflicts: this ERU has the potential for major conflicts in priority. 

General Thoughts 

♦Timber management and forest restoration in currently roaded areas, but with riparian 
protection similar to Alternative 3. This would require strategic planning for restoration and 
road maintenance work. 

♦Aquatics management emphasis in currently unroaded, and specific low-roaded areas (e.g., 
North Fork John Day requires special protection; large Key Watersheds are associated with the 
John Day, Imnaha river systems). 

♦ Range priority is assumed within the Malheur/Silvies river systems. 

Mapping Zone 6. Upper Klamath, Columbia Basin (ERUs 3, 4, 5; 
includes the small southwestern portion of ERU 5, Ft. Rock 
Ranger District, Ochoco National Forest, Prineville District BUM). 

Emphasis: Timber/grazing. 

♦ Conflicts: Livestock grazing and wildlife habitat degradation potential, particularly in native 
shrub-steppe environment. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Minimal riparian standards and guides 

♦ Lake Abert Key Watershed 

Mapping Zone 7. Northern Great Basin (ERU 4) 

Emphasis: Grazing, wildlife, mining, aquatics. 

♦ Conflicts: Wildlife priority and livestock grazing, especially in the native shrubland and 
grassland communities where candidate species exist (such as, sage grouse, sharp-tailed 
grouse, pygmy rabbit and others). 

■/■■■..■'.'.":' .. ; "' ; '- : -- ............ ..''!'.: . .'.'.'..'...'.'....,..■...■.■■.■'..'.'..".".'..'.:,.:.....:.::"."; " ......,...■..■.■::■■■■■-:-■.:■.,. 



General Thoughts 

♦ Range, with specific Aquatic /Wildlife protection of wetlands. Wildlife (shrub-steppe/wetland complexes) 
♦Aquatics (narrow endemics) 

♦ Key Watersheds (Lake Alvord, Trout Creek) Minimal (proper functioning condition) outside Key 
Watersheds. Wildlife emphasis requires protection and restoration of native vegetation 
communities, especially regarding the conversion of shrub-steppe. Wetland complexes require 
protection from trampling and further degradation, as these fragile aquatic environments serve 
an important functions, including the role as critical stop-over for shorebirds. 

♦ Mineral resource assessment (Box et al.1995) identifies southeast part of area as favorable for 
occurrence of several deposit types of gold and silver deposits. If found and developed, mines 
will probably be bulk-minable open pits and ore processing may require heap-leaching. 

Mapping Zone 8. Columbia Basin (ERU 5) 

Emphasis: Wildlife in selected areas (Near Hanford/Yakima firing range). 

General Thoughts 

♦ Key Watersheds: Umatilla, Walla Walla, Willow 

♦This area is primarily a wildlife priority area, although very little of it exists on Forest Service/ 
BLM-managed lands. Although outside of Forest Service/BLM management, there are 
important isolated pockets of shrub- steppe on the Hanford Reservation and the Yakima Firing 
Range, with associated wildlife species that are declining, but not much opportunity for 
management, as most of this area is in agricultural uses. 

Mapping Zone 9. Western and central portion of Northern 
Glaciated Mountains (ERU 7) 

Emphasis: Timber, roaded recreation, mining, wildlife (caribou, grizzly). 

♦ Compatibilities: timing of operations and effective road closures would allow for possibly 
conflicting resource values to be somewhat compatible. 

♦ Conflicts: not much conflict envisioned. 

General Thoughts 

♦West of Okanogan river corridor, Timber, Minerals, Roaded Recreation emphasis note: East of 
Okanogan river corridor, Mining and Timber priority in roaded recreation areas; Aquatics, 
Wildlife. Dispersed Recreation in unroaded areas. 

♦ Possible Key Watersheds tied to wildlife in Selkirk. Otherwise minimal riparian standards and 
guidelines except where possibly more stringent to meet recreation requirements. 

♦Area contains Republic District, historically one of largest gold producers in Northwest. 
Historically, most mining has been underground. Current exploration efforts are for low-grade, 
bulk minable deposits which may require cyanide heap-leach beneficiation. 

♦Area straddling Idaho-Montana border is favorable for several mineral deposit types, including 
strata-bound copper-silver deposits which contain abundant sulfides (high acid-rock drainage 
potential). 
Exploration for lead-zinc deposits in northeast Washington may continue. 



Mapping Zone 10. South Fork Flathead (ERU 7) 

Emphasis: Aquatics, dispersed recreation. 

♦ Compatibilities: Aquatics and dispersed recreation with wildlife. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Large Key Watershed type management. (Note: S. Fork Flathead river; major emphasis on fish). 

Mapping Zone 1 1 . Lower Clark Fork (ERU 8) 

Emphasis: Wildlife /minerals /primitive recreation. 

♦ Conflicts: most conflicts here expected to remain in Coeur d'Alene basin; fairly high primitive 
recreation values throughout. 

General Thoughts 

♦Wildlife emphasis is a priority for management, with the exception of mining projects. Wildlife 
concerns include large blocks of upper montane for forest carnivores, and a full compliment of 
predator/prey relationships. 

♦ Moderate RMOs, possible Key Watersheds. 

♦ Key watershed primarily located outside likely-to-be-mined areas. Coeur d'Alene drainage is 
world-class silver producer with associated lead-zinc minerals and historic tailings disposal. 

Mapping Zone 12. Upper Clark Fork (ERU 9) 

Emphasis: Aquatic/recreation/minerals. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Large Key Watersheds with Alternative 3 standards and guidelines, with special consideration 
for recreation, and mining. Mining restrictions for aquatic resources. Butte district is a world- 
class copper producer. Recent exploration has increased reserves. Area has had significant 
exploration and production of other metals as well. Clarks Fork river to junction with Flathead 
is listed 'as of concern for metals' under section 303(d) of Clean Water Act by EPA. Area has 
been a phosphate producer from underground mines. 

♦Wildlife concerns are for forest carnivore needs of connectivity with Glacier National Park, also 
representing a full compliment of predator/ prey relationships. 

Mapping Zone 13. Central Idaho Mountains (ERU 13) 

Emphasis: Aquatics, dispersed recreation, with mining. 

♦ Compatibilities: Aquatics, dispersed recreation, and wildlife believed compatible. 

♦ Conflicts: expect major conflicts within this ERU, as all major resource experiences are of very 
high value. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Large Key Watersheds 

♦ Note on ERU 13: This is a 3-way split of this area ~ Aquatics and Dispersed Recreation in 
center of ERU; Timber and Wildlife priority (not overlapping) in western portion: Range 
emphasis in southeastern portion. 



■swrpSS- ' 



♦ Gold and silver have been produced from several types of deposits scattered throughout the 
zone. Boise Basin has been major gold producer. Future gold and silver exploration will be for 
large, open-pittable deposit types. Cobalt and copper deposits are present in eastern part of 
area and may become important resource, depending on economic markets. 

Mapping Zone 14. Payette/Weiser (ERU 13 (B) 

Emphasis: Timber, wildlife (shrub/steppe/grassland), with mining, roaded recreation. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Potential key watershed, otherwise minimal riparian standards 

♦ Local small gold production. Future exploration likely to be limited. 

Mapping Zone 15. Owhyee Uplands (ERU 10) 

Emphasis: Grazing, wildlife, mining. 

♦ Conflicts: Shrub-steppe component for wildlife may be somewhat incompatible with livestock grazing. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Wetland complex important for wildlife values. 

♦ Few Key Watersheds (Jarbridge, Wood River) 

♦ Perhaps specific guidelines for Jarbridge and Wood River 
♦Tie Key Watersheds with wildlife 

♦ Similar potential for mineral resources as mapping zone 7 and northern Nevada (outside 
project area). Future minerals activity will be for gold and silver deposits of several types which 
will be exploited by open pit bulk mines. Cyanide or other leaching techniques may be required. 

Mapping Zone 1 6. Upper Snake (ERU 1 1 , Blast Zone) 

Emphasis: Grazing. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Some phosphate mining 

♦ Minimal (proper functioning condition) riparian requirements 

♦ Key Watersheds (Little Lost) 

Mapping Zone 1 7. Snake Headwaters (ERU 1 2) 

Emphasis: Wildlife, biodiversity, aquatics, recreation, phosphate production. 

General Thoughts 

♦ Similar to Mapping Zones 12 and 10 

♦ Idaho is nations third largest phosphate producer- area is world class phosphate producer. 
Currently 7 major active open pit mines. At current production rate (5 million metric tons/ 
year), known ore reserves represents 200 years of mining and production. 



: 



Rationale for Alternative 7 

Mapping Process for Reserve Areas 

Alternative 7 was designed to provide large islands of biodiversity that will be conserved in their 
present state. Natural processes, such as insects and diseases and fire, will be allowed without 
interference by humans. Alternative 7 was developed after review of current scientific thinking for 
design of reserve systems, including authors such as Reed Noss, Peter Morrison, the Wilderness 
Society, the Columbia River Bioregion Campaign and others. 

Initially two types of reserve system designs were considered; small reserves scattered within a 
matrix, similar to that used by the Northwest Forest Plan, and large-scale reserves similar to that 
proposed by Reed Noss. In the end, a combination of both of these proposals was used to design 
the alternative. A system of large reserves was chosen to provide a biosystem that was large 
enough to absorb large scale disturbances typical of those in the Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project Area. In addition, standards were included for the area outside of 
reserves to conserve old tree habitat areas. Although these areas are not referred to as part of the 
reserve system itself and are not presently mapped, they are intended to provide a network of old 
tree habitat between the reserves themselves. 

Large Scale Reserve Areas 

The reserve system proposed in Alternative 7 was built using the GIS mapping data from the 
Scientific Assessment Various GIS data layers were used to identify important features to be 
included in the system. Items that were identified for inclusion were a minimum of 20 percent of 
each potential vegetation type (PVG) in the entire project area (calculated on all ownerships, but 
mapped on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands only), centers of biodiversity and species 
rarity and endemism, core habitat areas for large forest carnivores, northern spotted owl habitat 
on the crest of the Cascade Range, strongholds of salmonid species, areas of high aquatic 
integrity, areas of narrowly distributed endemic fish species, and areas of important fringe 
populations of salmonid species. 

The base used to begin the process was a GIS map of all current natural areas and wilderness 
study areas on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands. Using GIS maps of the items 
discussed above, in addition to maps showing road densities, fire information, areas of urban 
interface and others, existing natural areas and wilderness study areas were blocked together to 
provide large areas of reserve habitat. Due to the large nature of reserve areas, high and lower 
quality habitat was included rather than trying to exclude lower quality areas, which would result 
in 'holes' in the reserve. In addition as the reserves were mapped, it was discovered that adding 
some lower elevation potential vegetation groups increased others beyond the goal of 20 percent. 
To further minimize 'holes' in the system, these areas were kept in the reserve. For that reason, 
44 percent of the cold forest within the project area is enclosed in reserves and 55 percent of the 
alpine potential vegetation group is included (See Table 3). 

Review of the percentages of potential vegetation groups after initial mapping led to adjustments. 
It was discovered that the preferred percentages for some potential vegetation groups were not 
going to be met. The dry grass potential vegetation group is generally located on other ownerships 
within the project area, and therefore has a low percentage in reserves. The dry grass group 
administered by BLM or Forest Service is scattered and difficult to incorporate into a large reserve 
system, although 43 percent was assigned to reserves. Riparian shrub has a similar situation 
with 57 percent of that available assigned to the reserve system, while only 8 percent of the 
project area is represented. Finally riparian woodland and woodland show lower percentages than 



desired, but that may be reflected in the scale of resolution. At this resolution used for the 
Scientific Assessment (smallest area evaluated was 1 kilometer, or 250 acres), riparian woodland 
and woodland present as inclusions within other potential vegetation groups would increase the 
percentage, although once again most of the available vegetation group is located on other 
ownerships. 

Table 3 shows the final acreage of each potential vegetation group that are within reserves, what 
percent that is of the total available on BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands, and the total 
of those vegetation groups available in the project area. These acreages may vary when the 
reserve system is implemented and actual on-the-ground locations are mapped. Some 
adjustments may be made by local units based on fine scale criteria that was not addressed in 
this EIS. 



Table 3. 


Acres of Potential 


Vegetation Groups Within Reserves. 








Acres on 








Potential 






BLM/FS- 


Percent of 


Total 


Percent of 


Vegetation 






Administered 


BLM/FS in 


Acres in 


Project Area 


Group 


Acres in Reserves 


Lands 


Reserve 


Project Area 


in Reserve 


Alpine 




121,000 


183,000 


66 


221,000 


55 


Cold Forest 




6,194,000 


12,376,000 


50 


14,176,000 


44 


Cool Shrub 




2,810,000 


7,336,000 


38 


12,810,000 


22 


Dry Forest 




5,467,000 


14,362.000 


38 


26,687,000 


20 


Dry Grass 




1,046,000 


2,431,000 


43 


12,339,000 


8 


Dry Shrub 




7,054,000 


20,639,000 


34 


24,323,000 


29 


Moist Forest 




8,306,000 


16,552,000 


50 


26,086,000 


32 


Riparian Shrub 


190,000 


334.000 


57 


2,400,000 


8 


Riparian Woodland 


121,000 


1,023,000 


12 


3,407,000 


4 


Woodland 




89,000 


412,000 


22 


4,379,000 


2 


Abbreviations- 


BLM = 


= Bureau of Land Management / FS = Forest Service 





Management Between Reserve Areas 

To provide pockets of habitat and enhance connectivity between large reserve areas, standards 
were included in the alternative to conserve old tree habitat that currently exists on BLM- or Forest 
Service- administered lands within the project area. These islands of old tree habitat would 
remain until other areas became available to replace them. 



As part of the aquatic strategy for this alternative, all roadless areas greater than 1,000 acres will 
continue to be managed as roadless in the areas between reserve areas. In addition all natural areas 
and wilderness study areas that did not become part of the base reserve system would remain in place. 



Rule Sets 

Development of Forest and Range Clusters, and 
Their Relationship to the Alternatives 

The Science Integration Team was asked by the EIS Team, based on their science findings, to 
identify the following: 

1. Those places (on public lands) within the project area where ecological integrity is high, 
medium, and low. 

2. Those places where there are opportunities to improve (restore) ecological integrity. 

3. Those places where there are opportunities to produce commodities with a low risk to 
ecological integrity. 

What the Science Team Did 

Based on what they learned about past and present conditions, the Science Integration Team rated 
areas as having high, medium, and low ecological integrity for the following: forestlands, 
rangelands, forestland hydrology, rangeland hydrology, and aquatics. The ratings were mapped for 
areas of approximately 800,000 to one million acres, or the size of river basins. There are 164 of 
these areas in the project area. 

The following characteristics were used in determining the ratings: 

Forestland Tree stocking levels consistent with long-term disturbances typical for 

certain forest types; the amount and distribution of exotic species; the 
amount of snags and downed woody material; disruptions to the hydrologic 
regimes; the absence or presence of wildfire and its effect on the composition 
and patterns of forest types; and changes in fire severity and frequency from 
historical (pre- 1900s) to the present. (See Map 2-45.) 

Rangeland Historical overgrazing; disruptions to the hydrologic regimes; expansion of 

exotic species; changes in fire severity and frequency; increases in bare soils; 
and expansion of woodlands into rangelands. (See Map 2-46.) 

Forestland Hydrology Functions Functioning of biogeochemical cycles; surface and sub- 
hydrology: surface flows; sediment and erosion hazards: and 
presence of riparian vegetation. (See Map 2-44.) 

Rangeland Hydrologic Functions Functioning of biogeochemical cycles; stream bank hydrology: 

stability; and resiliency to riparian disturbances. (See Map 2- 
44.) 

Aquatic Native fish diversity; presence of high quality, connected fish habitat; full 

complement offish life histories; and current condition offish populations. 
(See Map 2-36.) 






The five integrity ratings were integrated and combined into two ratings, one for forestlands and 
the other for rangelands. Further, the ratings for the 164 river basins were grouped into categories 
with similar characteristics or story lines. These groupings are referred to as "clusters." (See Maps 
2-47 and 2-48.) Both the forestlands and rangelands have six groupings or clusters. General 
characteristics of the six clusters for the forestlands and rangelands are found in the following 
tables. The forest and range clusters were useful to the EIS Team in prioritizing where 
management activities would occur across the landscape. Public opinion helped shape the EIS 
alternatives, which have different ways of addressing the Purpose and Need statement in Chapter 1. 

How Ecosystem Integrity Was Used in the 
Development of Alternatives 

Story lines developed through the process of identifying ecosystem integrity were used to help 
construct the alternatives. The story lines, or forest and rangeland clusters of watersheds with 
similar conditions, described three parameters. First, those places within the project area on 
lands managed by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management were rated for ecological 
integrity as either high, medium, or low. Second, the story lines or clusters reflect opportunities to 
improve ecologic integrity. Third, clusters are identified where multiple-use benefits can be 
produced with low ecological risks. 

Based on the conditions of the forest and range clusters and the themes of the alternatives, 
management emphasis was assigned to the clusters by alternative. This included the priorities 
described in Chapter 1: conserve, restore or produce (C,R,P). Expected activities were then 
identified. These are described in the Ruleset in the accompanying pages. These activities, such 
as riparian restoration, timber harvest, and prescribed burning, were further defined in relation to 
expected levels of activity by alternatives. Using the No Action alternative as a base, other 
alternatives were compared for expected levels of activity by cluster. These levels were defined and 
assigned a rating of high, medium or low. Levels of activity (H,M,L) described percent of certain 
areas expected for treatment by decade. 

After reviewing the activity levels, the EIS team reconfirmed management emphasis. Each forest 
and rangeland cluster was assigned a final rating of C, R, P, or combinations of these. These 
descriptions of management priorities and emphasis reflect the conditions of the clusters, the 
themes of the alternatives, and the expected activity levels. Final assignments of management 
emphasis were made by cluster by alternative. 

Activity tables were then developed to reflect assumptions of how alternatives would be 
implemented. These tables were derived by taking the acres by cluster and multiplying them by 
the percent of those lands where activities were expected to occur as described in the H, M, or L 
ranking in the Ruleset. 

Since these activity tables were developed by cluster by alternative, a simple way of displaying 
overall activities by alternative was developed. Ranges of activities for affected clusters were 
aggregated. The midpoint on these ranges were identified, and for analysis purposes, a variance of 
+/-15% from the midpoint was assumed. 

Activity tables were developed to aid analysis, not to assign or allocate specific actions. 
Management emphasis (C.R.P) is carried forth by alternative, and objectives, standards, and 
guidelines would be applied with this emphasis as a basis for overall management expectations. 



-■■■■ mm- 

-. ■■■:■:■■:.:.. .■.■■■' ...... . 



Rule Sets for Management Activity Levels by 
Cluster and Alternative 

Table of Contents 

SIT 

A. Developed individual integrity/departure ratings for forest, range, aquatic, and hydrologic 
layers based on individual 4th-field HUCs. 

B. As a result of individual integrity/departure layers, developed an integrated integrity layer for 
Forested lands and one for Rangelands resulting in combinations or "clusters" of 4th-field 
HUCs. This resulted in: 6 Forest clusters and 6 Range clusters. 

EIS Team Tables 

IF. Summary table ~ key variables summarizing differences among Forest Clusters. 

1R. Summary table ~ key variables summarizing differences among Range Clusters. 

2F. Activity level Assumptions ~ used to equate H, M, L Activity levels to a "% of forested area 
treated" (calibrated to activity levels in Alternative 1 - No Action). 

2R. Activity level Assumptions ~ used to equate H, M, L Activity levels to a "% of rangeland area 
treated" (calibrated to activity levels in Alternative 1 - No Action). 

3. Road "density class" calculations ~ an intermediate step used to determine what magnitude 
of road closures would be required to effect a change between road density classes (note: this 
applies to both Forest and Range Clusters) . 

4F. Activity Levels ~ applying H, M, L management activity levels to each Forest Cluster by Alternative 
(based on the theme of the Alternative and the condition and characteristics of the cluster). 

4R. Activity Levels - applying H, M, L management activity levels to each Range Cluster by Alternative 
(based on the theme of the Alternative and the condition and characteristics of the cluster). 

5. Alternative 5 "Priority Management Areas" ~ assigning a primary and secondary- 
management priority of Timber, Livestock, Recreation, Aquatics, or Wildlife to each Forest and 
Range Cluster. 

6F. Rule Sets - a repeatable process used to combine the H, M, L activity levels (from table 2) into 
a "General Management Emphasis" (Conserve, Restore, Produce) for each Forest Cluster for 
each Alternative. 

6R. Rule Sets ~ a repeatable process used to combine the H, M, L activity levels (from table 2R) 
into a "General Management Emphasis" (Conserve, Restore, Produce) for each Range Cluster 
for each Alternative. 

7F. Overall Management Strategy by Alternative ~ a summarization of general management 
emphasis by Forest Cluster (used to generate Alternative maps). 

7R. Overall Management Strategy by Alternative ~ a summarization of general management 
emphasis by Range Cluster (used to generate Alternative maps). 

8F. Conversion from "%" to "acres" ~ used to convert from "% of forested area treated" (per 

decade) for H, M, L activity levels in Table 2 to "acres treated" (in thousands per decade) for H, M, 
L activity levels. (Used to generate the Management Activity tables in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.) 

8R. Conversion from "%" to "acres" ~ used to convert from "% of rangeland area treated" (per 
decade) for H, M, L activity levels in Table 2R to "acres treated" (in thousands per decade) for H, 
M, L activity levels. (Used to generate the Management Activity tables in Chapter 3 of the DEIS) 



v::,::,::.::,:.;;.:;.;.;::.;.:;.. j : :.■;■■■:.;■■ ■■■■■■■■■ 



Table IF. Summary of Forest Clusters in the Project Area. 



Variable 



Forest Cluster (%) 
2 3 4 



BLM/Forest Service-administered land 
Forestlands 

Forested Vegetation Groups 

Dry Forest 
Moist Forest 
Cold Forest 

Road Density Classes 

Low or none 

Moderate or higher 

Fire frequency change 

Fire severity increase 

High wildland/urban fire interface risk 

Moderate wildland/urban fire interface risk 

Forest Integrity 

Low 

Moderate 

High 

Aquatic Integrity 

Low 

Moderate 

High 

Hydrologic Integrity 

Low 

Moderate 

High 

Composite Ecologicallhtegrity 

Low 

Moderate 

High 



80 


86 


40 


58 


50 


35 


83 


81 


70 


88 


53 


48 


16 


37 


35 


18 


81 


51 


27 


27 


52 


73 


11 


21 


57 


36 


13 


9 


8 


28 


85 


62 


32 


20 


22 


36 


15 


38 


68 


80 


78 


64 


37 


60 


66 


51 


60 


60 


36 


50 


57 


47 


35 


36 





17 


6 


1 


29 


10 


29 


61 


36 


13 


30 


23 





10 


67 


86 


79 


59 





43 


33 


10 


21 


17 


100 


47 





4 





24 


5 





8 


54 


52 


87 


38 


59 


85 


46 


44 


13 


58 


41 


7 





4 








4 


47 


12 


39 


76 


4 


30 


49 


54 


41 


17 


96 


66 


4 


34 


20 


7 








4 


83 


96 


100 





3 


96 


17 


4 





100 


97 















Source: ICBEMP GIS data (converted to 1 Km 2 raster data). 






Table 1R. Summary of Range Clusters 


in the 


Project 


Area. 














Range Cluster (%) 




Variable 


i 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


BLM/Forest Service-administered land 


36 


81 


44 


5 


75 


55 


Rangelands 


54 


5 


6 


29 


65 


59 


Rangeland Vegetation Groups 














Dry Rangeland 


49 


34 


17 


30 


61 


61 


Cool Rangeland 


34 


8 


8 


3 


27 


11 


Other 


17 


58 


75 


67 


12 


28 


Road Density Classes 














Low or none 


20 


71 


30 


62 


64 


30 


Moderate or higher 


80 


29 


70 


38 


36 


70 


Cropland/pasture 


9 


3 


14 


56 


5 


17 


< 12" annual precipitation 


23 


1 


2 


51 


33 


38 


Fire frequency change 


37 


51 


67 


17 


24 


17 


Fire severity increase 


18 


47 


49 


13 


16 


9 


High wildland/urban fire risk interface 


32 


7 


12 





6 


8 


Moderate wildland/urban fire risk interface 


10 


59 


33 


4 


58 


39 


Change in juniper woodland 


+ 12 

















Range Integrity 














Low 


100 


6 


76 


100 


26 


79 


Moderate 





37 


15 





50 


21 


High 





57 


9 





24 





Aquatic Integrity 














Low 


39 


4 


43 


84 


37 


79 


Moderate 


61 


24 


50 


16 


57 


18 


High 





72 


7 





6 


3 


Hydrologic Integrity 














Low 


34 


6 


49 


100 


7 


44 


Moderate 


66 


16 


35 





35 


34 


High 





78 


16 





58 


22 


Composite Ecological Integrity 














Low 


100 





58 


97 


8 


80 


Moderate 





3 


32 


3 


63 


20 


High 





97 


10 





29 





Source: ICBEMP GIS data (converted to 1 Km 2 raster data). 



x-xxmm 



Table 2F. Forest Cluster Activity Level Assumptions. 



Low 



Moderate High 



Harvest (commercial) 

(% of all forested area treated/decade) 

Thin (pre-commercial) 

(% of all forested area treated/decade) 

Decrease Road Density 

(% of native surface road miles reduced/decade) 



Watershed Restoration 

(% of all forested area treated/decade) 

Prescribe Burning 

(% of all forested area treated/decade) 

Prescribed Fire Plans 

(% of all forested area for which plans have been 
implemented) 



Alts 1,2,7 > 


0-4 


0-5 


4-8 


Alts 3-6 > 


5-9 


8-10 


9-11 




0-3 


3-6 


6-8 


ecade) 


0-25 


25-50 


50+ 

changes road 
density class 




0-3 


3-6 


6-8 




0-5 


5-9 


9-11 


e been 


0-20 


20-40 


40+ 



Harvest: All commercial harvest methods (e.g. single tree selection, group selection, shelterwood, 
seed tree, overstory removal, clearcut, and commercial thinning from above or below) 

Thin: All pre-commercial thinnings used to alter forest structure, species composition, density, 
rate of growth, fuel ladders, fire behavior, etc. 

Decrease Road Density: Permanent closure of primarily native surface roads. 

Watershed Restoration: Includes increased road maintenance, improved road condition (surface 
and/or drainage), reduced road related erosion, road obliteration, road de-commissioning, 
increased coarse woody debris, riparian plantings, in-channel restoration, etc. 

Prescribed Burning: Management ignited fire. 

Prescribed Fire Plan: Allows natural ignition fires to burn when in prescription and/or identifies 
areas that require prescribed burning. 



Table 2R. Range Cluster Activity Level Assumptions. 



Low- 



Moderate High 



Livestock Management 

(% of all rangeland with improved management) 

Improve Rangelands 

(% of all rangeland treated/decade) 

Decrease Road Density 

(% of native surface road miles reduced/decade) 



Riparian Restoration 

(% of all riparian areas treated/decade) 

Prescribe Burning 

(% of all rangeland treated/decade) 

Prescribed Fire Plan 

(% of all rangeland for which plans have been 
implemented) 



0-6 


6-12 


12-20 


0-4 


4-8 


8-11 


0-25 


25-50 


50+ 

changes road 
density class 


0-25 


25-50 


50-75 


0-3 


3-6 


6-9 


0-20 


20-40 


40+ 



Livestock Management: A summation of livestock management variables that affect rangeland 
health, including grazing systems, changing riparian grazing management, season of use (length 
and timing), number of head, change of class, distribution, grazing deferment, and herding. 

Improve Rangelands: Capital Investments: fencing, stockwater improvements, seedings, control 
of invasion or spread of exotics, and non-fire shrub and juniper control. 

Decrease Road Density: Permanent closure of primarily native surface roads. 

Riparian Restoration: Includes improving road condition (drainage and/ or surface), riparian 
plantings, in-channel restoration, and riparian exclosures. 

Prescribe Burning: Management ignited fire. 

Prescribed Natural Fire: Allows natural ignition fires to burn when in prescription and /or 



identifies areas that require prescribed burning. 



Table 3. Changing Road Density Class 1 



Density Multiplier Percent of roads that 

(miles/ Mean (between would have to be closed to 

Class sq. mile) Density classes) drop one density class. 

90 
80 
70 
60 
50 

'Calculations depicting the percent of road closures necessary to effect a change in road density class. 



None 


- 0.02 


0.006 


10 


Very Low 


0.02 - 0.1 


0.06 


7 


Low 


0.1 - 0.7 


0.4 


3 


Moderate 


0.7 - 1.7 


1.2 


2.5 


High 


1.7 - 4.7 


3.2 


2 


Extreme 


4.7+ 


6 





..v.......v.w:.:. '."■"" ■■ : "■' ■■ 



'. . . 

..■;.'.".■■■.■■■ 



Table 4F. Activity Levels By Forest Cluster by Alternative. 



Action 



3 



Alternative 
4 5 6 



Forest Cluster 1 

Harvest 

Thin 

Decrease road density 

Watershed restoration 

Prescribed burning 

Prescribed fire plans 



L 
L 
L 
L 
L 
H 



L 
L 

L 

M 
L 
H 



L 
L 
L 
M 
M 
H 



L 

L 
L 
M 
H 
H 



L 

L 

L 
M 
L 

H 



L 
L 
L 
M 
M 
H 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Primitive Recreation/Aquatics 



Forest Cluster 2 

Harvest 

Thin 

Decrease road density 

Watershed restoration 

Prescribed burning 

Prescribed fire plans 

Forest Cluster 3 

Harvest 

Thin 

Decrease road density 

Watershed restoration 

Prescribed burning 

Prescribed fire plans 

Forest Cluster 4 

Harvest 

Thin 

Decrease road density 

Watershed restoration 

Prescribed burning 

Prescribed fire plans 

Forest Cluster 5 

Harvest 

Thin 

Decrease road density 

Watershed restoration 

Prescribed burning 

Prescribed fire plans 

Forest Cluster 6 

Harvest 

Thin 

Decrease road density 

Watershed restoration 

Prescribed burning 

Prescribed fire plans 



M 
L 
L 
L 
L 
H 



L 
L 
L 

M 

L 

H 



L 
L' 
M 

M 
M 

H 



L 
M 
M 

H 
H 
H 



L 
L 
L 
M 

M 
H 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Aquatics/Recreation 



H 
M 
L 
L 

L 
L 



M 
L 
L 
M 
L 
L 



M 
M 
M 
M 

M 
L 



M M 

H H 

M M 

M M 

M M 

M M 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Aquatics/Timber 



H 
M 
L 
L 
L 
L 



M 
M 
L 
L 
L 
L 



M 
H 
M 
L 
L 
L 



M 
H 
M 
M 

M 
M 



H 
H 
L 
L 

L 
L 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Timber/Wildlife 



II 
M 
L 
L 
L 
L 



L 
M 
M 
L 
L 
L 



M 
H 
H 
L 
M 
M 



M 

H 

H 
M 
H 

H 



M 
H 
M 
M 
M 
H 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Timber/ Livestock 



M 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 



L 
L 
L 
L 
L 
L 



L 
H 
L 
L 
M 
M 



L M 

H M 

M L 

L L 

M M 

M L 



L 

M 
M 
M 

M 
H 



L 

M 
H 

M 
M 
M 



M 
H 
M 

M 
M 
M 



L 

H 
M 

IV! 
H 
H 



L 
H 
L 

L 
M 
M 



L 
L 
L 
L 

L 

H 



L 
L 

M 
L 

L 
H 



L 
L 
H 
L 
M 
H 



L 
L 

M 
L 

M 
M 



L 
M 
H 

L 
L 

M 



L 

L 

L 

L 

M 

M 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Wildlife /Recreation 






Table 4R. Activity Levels by Range Cluster by Alternative. 



Action 



Alternative 
4 5 6 



Range Cluster 1 

Livestock management 
Improve rangelands 
Decrease road density 
Riparian restoration 
Prescribed burning 
Prescribed fire plans 



Range Cluster 2 

Livestock management 
Improve rangelands 
Decrease road density 
Riparian restoration 
Prescribed burning 
Prescribed fire plans 



Range Cluster 3 

Livestock management 
Improve rangelands 
Decrease road density 
Riparian restoration 
Prescribed burning 
Prescribed fire plans 

Range Cluster 4 

Livestock management 
Improve rangelands 
Decrease road density 
Riparian restoration 
Prescribed burning 
Prescribed fire plans 

Range Cluster 5 

Livestock management 
Improve rangelands 
Decrease road density 
Riparian restoration 
Prescribed burning 
Prescribed fire plans 

Range Cluster 6 

Livestock management 
Improve rangelands 
Decrease road density 
Riparian restoration 
Prescribed burning 
Prescribed fire plans 



L 


M 


M 


M 


L 


M 


H 


L 


L 


M 


M 


L 


M 


L 


L 


L 


L 


H 


M 


M 


M 


L 


L 


L 


M 


L 


M 


L 


L 


L 


M 


H 


M 


H 


M 


L 


L 


M 


H 


H 


II 


H 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Livestock/Timber 



H 


H 


H 


H 


11 


H 


H 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


L 


M 


L 


M 


L 


L 


L 


M 


H 


M 


M 


L 


H 


H 


H 


H 


H 


H 


H 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Recreation/Aquatics 



M 
L 
L 
L 
L 
L 



H 

I, 
L 
M 
L 
L 



II 
L 
L 
M 
M 
M 



H H 

M M 

M L 

M L 

H M 

H M 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Recreation/Wildlife 



L 
L 
L 
L 

L 
L 



M 
L 

L 
L 
L 
L 



M 
L 
M 
L 
M 
L 



M M 

M L 

M L 

M M 

M L 

M L 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Wildlife 



L 
L 
L 
L 
L 
L 



M 
L 
L 
L 

L 

L 



M 
M 
L 
M 
M 
L 



H 

M 
L 
M 
M 
M 



M 
L 
L 

M 
L 
L 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Livestock/ Recreation 



L 
L 

L 
L 
L 
L 



M 
L 
L 

L 
L 
L 



M 

M 

L 
M 
L 

L 



H M 

H M 

M L 

M M 

L L 

L L 



H 
M 
L 
L 

M 
H 



M 
M 

M 
M 
L 

M 



H 

L 
L 

M 
M 
M 



H 
M 
M 
M 
L 
L 



H 
L 

M 
L 

L 
H 



H 
L 

M 
M 
L 

M 



H 

L 
L 

L 

M 
H 



H 
L 
M 

M 
L 



Alternative 5 Management Priority: Livestock/Wildlife 



EIS/Appn-vmx 3-3/Pace 313 



Table 5. Alternative 5 "Priority Management" Areas. 



Primary Priority 



Secondary Priority 



Forest Cluster 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 



Primitive Recreation 

Aquatics 

Aquatics 

Timber 

Timber 

Wildlife 



Aquatics 

Recreation 

Timber 

Wildlife 

Livestock 

Recreation 



Range Cluster 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 



Livestock 

Recreation 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

Livestock 

Livestock 



Timber 

Aquatics 

Wildlife 



Recreation 
Wildlife 



RULE SET - Process for combining Activity Levels into a "General 
Management Emphasis" for Forest Clusters. 



Table 6F. 



The following describes how "general management emphases" were established for the Forest 
clusters for each alternative based on the activity levels. 

Management Emphasis (general emphasis applied to the "Cluster /Alternative theme" combination) 



c 


Conserve 


C-R 


Conserve/Restore 


R 


Restore 


R-P 


Restore/Produce 


P 


Produce 


P-C 


Produce/ Conserve 



The management emphasis was assigned by the level of production (harvest) and restoration (thin, 
road density reduction, watershed restoration, prescribed burning) activities. 



Management 
Emphasis 



Harvest 
Level 



Restoration Activities 



c 


Low 


C-R 


Low 


R 


Low or Mod 


R-P 


Mod or High 


P 


High 


P-C 


Mod 



1 or less restoration activity > or = Mod 

2 restoration activities > or - Mod 

3 or more restoration activities > or = Mod 
2 restoration activities > or = Mod 

1 or less restoration activity > or = Mod 
1 or less restoration activity > or = Mod 



*||lt||i 



Table 6R. RULE SET - Process for Combining Activity Levels into a 
"General Management Emphasis" for Range Clusters. 

The following describes how "general management emphases" were established for the Range 
Clusters for each alternative based on the activity levels. 

Management Emphasis (general emphasis applied to the "Cluster /Alternative theme" combination) 



c 


Conserve 


C-R 


Conserve/Restore 


R 


Restore 


R-P 


Restore/ Produce 


P 


Produce 


P-C 


Produce/Conserve 



The management emphasis was assigned by the level of livestock management and restoration 
(rangeland improvements, road density reduction, riparian restoration, prescribed burning) activities. 



Management 
Emphasis 



Level of 
Livestock Mgmt. 



Restoration Activities 



c 


High 


C-R 


High 


R 


Mod or High 


R-P 


Low or Mod 


P 


Low 


P-C 


Mod 



1 or less restoration activity > or = Mod 

2 restoration activities > or = Mod 

3 or more restoration activities > or = Mod 
2 restoration activities > or = Mod 

1 or less restoration activity > or = Mod 
1 or less restoration activity > or = Mod 



Table 7F. Overall Management Strategy by Alternative. 

(Summarization of General Management Emphasis by Forest Cluster) 



Forest 
Cluster 



Alternative 

4 



6 



1 


C 


c 


C-R 


C-R 


C 


C-R 


C 


2 


P-C 


c 


R 


R 


C-R 


R 


C 


3 


P 


P-C 


R 


R 


R 


R 


C-R 


4 


P 


P-C 


R-P 


R 


P 


R 


C-R 


5 


P 


C-R 


R 


R 


R 


R 


C-R 


6 


P-C 


C 


C-R 


R 


R-P 


C-R 


C 



Table 7R. Overall Management Strategy by Alternative. 

(Summarization of General Management Emphasis by Range Cluster) 



Forest 
Cluster 



Alternative 
4 



6 



1 


P 


P-C 


R-P 


R 


R-P 


R 


C-R 


2 


C 


c 


C 


C-R 


C 


C-R 


C 


3 


P-C 


c 


C-R 


R 


C-R 


C-R 


C 


4 


p 


P-C 


R-P 


R 


P-C 


R 


C-R 


5 


p 


P-C 


R 


R 


P-C 


C-R 


C 


6 


p 


P-C 


R-P 


R 


R-P 


R 


C-R 



Table 8F. Management Activity Levels in Forest Clusters, 


in Acres. 


Harvest 




Alternatives 1, 


2&7 








Acres (in the first decade) 




Forest Acres 


Forest 


Low 


Moderate 


High 


(x 1,000) 


Cluster 


0-4% 


4-8% 


8-10% 








in thousands 




5,156 


1 


0-200 


200 - 400 


400 - 500 


10,724 


2 


0-450 


450 - 850 


850- 1,050 


3,955 


3 


- 150 


150 - 300 


300 - 400 


9,296 


4 


0-350 


350 - 750 


750 - 950 


7,560 


5 


0-300 


300 - 600 


600 - 750 


2,687 


6 


0- 100 

Alternatives 3, 4 
Acres ( 


100 - 200 

, 5. & 6 

in the first decade) 


200 - 250 


Forest Acres 


Forest 


Low 


Moderate 


High 


(x 1,000) 


Cluster 


0-5% 


5-9% 


9-11% 








in thousands 




5,156 


1 


0-250 


250 - 450 


450 - 550 


10,724 


2 


0- 550 


550 - 950 


950 - 1200 


3,955 


3 


0- 200 


200 - 350 


350 - 450 


9,296 


4 


0-450 


450 - 850 


850 - 1000 


7,560 


5 


0-400 


400 - 700 


700 - 850 


2,687 


6 


0- 150 


150 - 250 


250 - 300 



Thin 



Acres (in the first decade) 



Forest Acres 


Forest 


Low 


Moderate 


High 


(x 1,000) 


Cluster 


0-3% 


3-6% 


6-8% 








in. thousands 




5,156 


1 


0- 150 


150-300 


300 - 400 


10,724 


2 


0-300 


300 - 650 


650 - 850 


3,955 


3 


0- 100 


100-250 


250 - 300 


9,296 


4 


0-300 


300 - 550 


550 - 750 


7,560 


5 


0-250 


250 - 450 


450 - 600 


2,687 


6 


0- 100 


100 - 150 


150 - 200 



Prescribed Burning 



Acres (in the first decade) 



Forest Acres 


Forest 


Low 


Moderate 


High 


(x 1,000) 


Cluster 


0-5% 


5-9% 


9-11 








in thousands 




5,156 


1 


0-250 


250 - 450 


450 - 550 


10,724 


2 


0. 550 


550 - 950 


950- 1,200 


3,955 


3 


- 200 


200 - 350 


350 - 450 


9,296 


4 


- 450 


450 - 850 


850 - 1,000 


7,560 


5 


- 400 


400 - 700 


700 - 850 


2,687 


6 


- 150 


150-250 


250 - 300 



Table 8F. Management Activity Levels in Forest Clusters (continued). 



Watershed Restoration 



Acres {in the first decade) 



Forest Acres 


Forest 


Low 


Moderate 


High 


(x 1,000) 


Cluster 


0-3% 


3-6% 


6-8% 








in thousands 




5, 156 


1 


0- 150 


150 - 300 


300 - 400 


10,724 


2 


0- 300 


300 - 650 


650 - 850 


3,955 


3 


0- 100 


100 - 250 


250 - 300 


9,296 


4 


0- 300 


300 - 550 


550 - 750 


7,560 


5 


0- 250 


250 - 450 


450 - 600 


2,687 


6 


0- 100 


100- 150 


150 - 200 



Table 8R. Management Activity Levels in Range Clusters, in Acres. 



Livestock Management 



Acres (in the first decade) 



Range Acres 


Range 


Low 


Moderate 


High 


(x 1,000) 


Cluster 


0-6% 


6-12% 


12-20% 








in thousands 




1,632 


1 


0- 100 


100 - 195 




103 


2 


0- 6 


6- 12 


12- 20 


107 


3 


0- 6 


6- 12 


12- 20 


32 


4 


0- 2 


2-4 




13,367 


5 


0- 800 


800 - 1600 


1600 - 2670 


14,640 


6 


0-880 


880 - 1760 


1760 - 2925 



Improve Rangelands 









Acres (in the first decade) 


Range Acres 


Range 


Low 


Moderate 


High 


(x 1,000) 


Cluster 


0-4% 


4-8% 


8-11% 








in thousands 




1,632 


1 


0- 65 


65 - 130 


130 - 180 


103 


2 


0- 5 


5- 10 




107 


3 


0- 5 


5- 10 




32 


. 4 


0- 5 






13,367 


5 


0- 535 


535 - 1070 


1070 - 1470 


14,640 


6 


- 585 


585 - 1170 


1170 - 1610 



Table 8R. Management Activity Levels in Range Clusters (continued). 
Prescribed Burning 









Acres (in the first decade) 




Range Acres 


Range 


Low 


Moderate 


High 


(x 1,000) 


Cluster 


0-3% 


3-6% 


6-9% 








in thousands 




1,632 


1 


0- 50 


50 - 100 


100- 150 


103 


2 


- 5 


5 - 10 




107 


3 


0-5 


5- 10 




32 


4 


0- 5 






13,367 


5 


0-400 


400 - 800 




14,640 


6 


- 440 


440 - 880 





Riparian Restoration 







Acres 


(in the first deca 


de) 


Range 


Low 




Moderate 


High 


Cluster 


0-25% 




25-50% 


50-75% 








in thousands 




1 


0- 10 




10-20 




2 


0- 1 








3 


0- 1 








4. 


0- 1 








5 


0-65 




65- 135 




6 


0- 75 




75 - 145 





Appendix 3-4 

Direction for 
RCAs and RMOs 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix G) 




Contents 

Introduction 320 

Overview of Aquatic and Riparian Strategies for each 

Alternative 320 

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) for each 

Alternative 323 

Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) for each 

Alternative 331 

Literature Cited 340 



-.-.. .-..■.■.■..■.......■...■.■.■.■.■■■■ 

■ ■ ■ 

-\ " ■ ■■■ -. ■ . ... ■■.■■■ mm 



Introduction 



The information in Appendix 3-4 is an integral element to be used in conjunction with Chapter 3 
direction. The appendix information supports and guides the objectives and standards in table 3-5 
and is not intended to stand alone. 

The first section of this appendix provides an overview of the main components of the aquatic and 
riparian strategy by alternative. The overview is followed by two sections that further describe, by 
alternative, two components of the aquatic and riparian strategy: riparian area width delineation 
termed Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), and Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs). 
Riparian area widths were termed Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) in PACF1SH and 
INFISH; however, to avoid confusion, riparian area widths are referred to as Riparian Conservation 
Areas in all alternatives. 

Overview of Aquatic and Riparian 
Strategies 

Alternative 1 

The basic concept for aquatic and riparian management under Alternative 1 is to rely upon existing 
direction within Forest Service and BLM land-use plans prior to Decision Notices for PACFISH and 
INFISH and BLM Statewide bull trout conservation strategies instruction memoranda. This direction 
varies among land-use plans. Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale is not required on Forest 
Service- or BLM-administered lands under Alternative 1 . However, Northwest Forest Plan direction 
would still apply under all alternatives to those areas described by its Record of Decision. 

Alternative 2 

The strategy for Alternative 2 is based on direction within PACFISH and INFISH and BLM statewide 
bull trout conservation strategies instruction memoranda. Under Alternative 2, this direction 
becomes permanent and applies to Forest Service- or BLM-administered lands described within 
Decision Notices for PACFISH and INFISH and BLM Statewide bull trout conservation strategies 
instruction memoranda. On Forest Service or BLM-administered lands not described within the 
Decision Notices or instruction memoranda, management direction is the same as Alternative 1. 
Aquatic and riparian management goals (described in Chapter 3 Desired Range of Future Condition 
by alternative), RCAs, and RMOs are the same as those within PACFISH and INFISH. Key and 
priority watersheds identified for PACFISH and INFISH, respectively, are incorporated into the 
alternative. Watershed restoration rates would be greater than Alternative 1, and priority will be 
given to key and priority watersheds. 

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale is required prior to timber salvage cutting (including 
fuelwood) or construction of new roads, landings, or recreation facilities within RCAs. 

Alternative 3 

The Alternative 3 aquatic and riparian strategy emphasizes protection or restoration of watershed 
processes and functions, aquatic and riparian-dependent species' habitat, and water quality. This 



strategy applies to all Forest Service- or BLM-administered lands. Components of the strategy are 
the following: sub-basin review, Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, sub-basin categories 
(1 through 3), watershed and riparian restoration, RCAs, RMOs, and objectives and standards 
modified from PACFISH/INFISH. Aquatic and riparian management goals, RCAs, and RMOs are 
the same as those within PACFISH/INFISH, except that a minimum RCA width of 100 feet is 
required on either side of intermittent streams. Sub-basin category objectives provide management 
emphasis for protection or restoration of watershed, riparian, and aquatic processes and functions. 
Sub-basin review and Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale provide information to validate 
broader scale relationships and strategically prioritize ecosystem conservation or restoration 
management actions. Watershed restoration rates are greater than Alternative 2 but less than 
Alternative 4. 

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale shall be completed prior to any activity that requires 
an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (1) in Category 1 sub-basins 
(excluding activities within Wilderness Areas except human-ignited prescribed fires) or (2) within 
stronghold subwatersheds, bull trout fringe subwatersheds, subwatersheds containing wild 
populations of steelhead or ocean- or stream-type chinook salmon, or Snake River salmon or bull 
trout high priority watersheds. 

Alternative 4 

The Alternative 4 aquatic and riparian strategy emphasis and components are similar to 
Alternative 3. This strategy applies to all Forest Service- or BLM-administered lands. Components 
of the strategy are the following: sub-basin review, Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, 
sub-basin categories (1 through 3), watershed and riparian restoration, RCAs, RMOs, and 
objectives and standards modified from PACFISH/INFISH. Aquatic and riparian management goals 
are based on PACFISH/INFISH and the Northwest Forest Plan. Forestland RCAs are delineated 
into zones, and rangeland RCAs are delineated by floodprone width. Two RMO value options, 
based on PACFISH/INFISH and Aquatic SIT assessment information, are presented for public 
review and comment. Sub-basin category objectives provide management emphasis for protection 
or restoration of watershed, riparian, and aquatic processes and functions. Sub-basin review and 
Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale are used to provide information to strategically 
prioritize ecosystem conservation or restoration management actions. This alternative has the 
highest watershed restoration rate. 

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale shall be completed prior to any activity that requires 
an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (1) in Category 1 sub-basins 
(excluding activities within Wilderness Areas except human-ignited prescribed fires) or (2) within 
subwatersheds where federally listed or proposed species or their habitats, or recently occupied or 
currently accessible habitat for federally listed and proposed species, or populations of steelhead or 
ocean- or stream-type chinook salmon, would be affected. 

Alternative 5 

The aquatic and riparian strategy emphasis and components vary among priority areas in 
Alternative 5. Within timber, recreation, and livestock priority areas, the emphasis is on the 
protection or restoration of riparian and aquatic processes and functions and water quality while 
efficiently producing goods and services. Emphasis within aquatic and wildlife priority areas is the 
same as Alternative 4. Components of the strategy within timber and livestock priority areas are 
sub-basin review, watershed and riparian restoration. RCAs, RMOs, and objectives and standards 
designed to meet State and Federal laws. Recreation, wildlife, and aquatic priority areas have the 
same components as Alternative 4. except that recreation priority areas have different standards 
specific for recreation management. Aquatic and riparian management goals for all priority areas 

■:""'■;..■■".":.'"':'■:-" ■"....:"."".■. ...'■"-.■ .-:-,- :-;-;- .;...;;;...;. .;.;;.; : . : ;.;...,^ '..'.', ,,-■;/- .... ■/■.■■ ■,;;-/-; :./^T"::^"^ZC ^ "" ."■'.:-■-.-. - "..:...- ■'■'. "'" .-. . : ■ "■■ - ; --/: .-;.-; -"-v-^.- ;IV^- -v-- : ---- ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ 



are based on PACFISH/INFISH. Timber priority area RMOs and RCAs are determined through site- 
specific analysis, or through ecosystem analysis if site-level information is inadequate to identify 
protection of stream input functions. No RMOs or RCAs are identified for livestock priority areas; 
however, other objectives and standards apply (See table 3-5). Watershed restoration is consistent 
with priority area emphasis with an overall rate similar to Alternative 3. 

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale is not required in timber and livestock priority areas. 

Alternative 6 

Under Alternative 6, the aquatic and riparian strategy emphasis and components, sub-basin 
review, goals, objectives and standards, RCAs, and RMOs are the same as Alternative 4 except for 
ecosystem analysis requirements. Watershed restoration rates are slightly less than Alternative 4. 

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale is required in the following situations: 

♦ prior to any activity that requires an environmental assessment or environmental impact 
statement in Category 1 sub-basins (excluding activities within Wilderness Areas except 
human-ignited prescribed fires); or 

♦ prior to any activity that requires an environmental assessment or environmental impact 
statement in a subwatershed that would affect federally listed, proposed, or candidate species 
or their habitats; or recently occupied or currently accessible habitat for federally listed and 
proposed species; or strongholds and fringe populations of redband trout, westslope cutthroat, 
or Yellowstone cutthroat trout; or 

♦ prior to road density increases in subwatersheds with road densities less than 0.7 miles per 
square mile; or 

♦ prior to activities that require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement 
and that significantly modify large blocks of native rangeland. 

After a four-year transition period, Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale shall be completed on all 
land administered by the Forest Service or BLM prior to any activity that requires an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement unless exempted by a screening process. 

Alternative 7 

The aquatic and riparian strategy of Alternative 7 emphasizes protection or restoration of 
watershed processes and functions, aquatic and riparian-dependent species' habitat, and water 
quality; it includes a system of large reserves and other unroaded areas larger than 1,000 acres 
(see Chapter 3, Theme and Design of Alternative 7). Components of the strategy are the same as 
Alternative 3, 4, and 6 except for the system of reserves and a coarse screening process. Aquatic 
and riparian management goals are similar to the Northwest Forest Plan. RCA definitions are the 
same as Alternative 2 except that a minimum width of 150 feet is required on either side of 
intermittent streams. RMO variables and values are expanded from PACFISH/INFISH based in 
part on other information as described in the RMO section for Alternative 7. Sub-basin category 
and reserve management objectives and standards provide management emphasis for protection or 
restoration of watershed, riparian, and aquatic processes and functions. Sub-basin review and 
Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale are used to provide information to strategically 
prioritize ecosystem conservation or restoration management actions. Overall, this alternative has 
the lowest active watershed restoration rate. 



Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale is required in the following situations: 

♦ prior to any activity that requires an environmental assessment or environmental impact 
statement in Category 1 sub-basins (excluding activities within Wilderness Areas except 
human-ignited prescribed fires); or 

♦ prior to any activity that requires an environmental assessment or environmental impact 
statement in a subwatershed that would affect federally listed and proposed species or their 
habitats, or recently occupied or currently accessible habitat for federally listed and proposed 
species; or 

♦ prior to road density increases in subwatersheds with road densities less than 0.7 miles per 
square mile; or 

♦ prior to timber harvest in RCAs; or 

♦ prior to management actions in subwatersheds that have more than 1 percent of the area 
affected by fire; or 

♦ prior to issuing water conveyance permits. 



Direction for RCAs and RMOs 



RCA widths and RMO values are standards. The mechanism for modifying RCA widths and RMO 
values varies among alternatives and is identified in standard EM-SI 3. In Alternative 1, 
modifications are identified in individual land-use plans. Generally in Alternative 2, RCA and RMO 
modification will require completion of Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale to provide the 
ecological basis for change, but widths and values can be modified in the absence of Ecosystem 
Analysis at the Watershed Scale where stream reach or site-specific data support the change. In 
Alternatives 3, 4, 5 (outside timber and livestock priority areas), and 7, RCA widths and RMO 
values can be changed only after conducting Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. In 
Alternative 6 during the first four years, RCA widths and RMO values can be adjusted with 
Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale or with site-specific analysis if conditions in EM-S13 
are met. After four years, RCA widths and RMO values can be adjusted only after conducting 
Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. In all alternatives, the following shall be documented: 

1) whether standard RCA widths and RMO values were used or whether modifications were made; 

2) the rationale for using standard widths or modifications; and 3) the effects of modifications. 

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) 

Introduction 

Riparian systems are water-influenced areas that include streams and other aquatic ecosystems. 
Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) are portions of watersheds where aquatic and riparian- 
dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where management activities are subject to 
specific standards and guidelines. Riparian Conservation Areas include traditional riparian 
corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help maintain the integrity of 
aquatic ecosystems by: (1) influencing the delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody 
debris to streams; (2) providing root strength for channel stability; (3) shading the stream; and 
(4) protecting water quality. 

In RCAs, maintenance, protection, and restoration of aquatic processes and functions are 
emphasized and goals and objectives for aquatic and riparian habitats are met. Conservation 
needs for aquatic and riparian systems can be summarized by the following four principles: 



Draft EIS/Arpwmx 3-4/Pack 323 



1. A stream requires nutrient inputs and energy to sustain its biological functions. 

2. Riparian-associated plants and animals rely on the vegetation adjacent to streams. 

3. Small streams are more affected by hillslope processes than larger streams. 

4. The likelihood of disturbances resulting in instream effects increases as adjacent slopes 
become steeper. 

Alternative 1 

Most existing land-use plans identify riparian area boundaries that focus on water quality and 
habitat components through application of Best Management Practices. Typically these widths 
differ among land-use plans. 

Alternative 2 

In Alternative 2, riparian areas will be delineated in watersheds as described in the Decision 
Notices for PACFISH (2/24/95) and INFISH (7/28/95) for use on Forest Service-administered 
lands, and for PACFISH (2/24/95) and Statewide bull trout conservation strategy for BLM- 
administered lands. Delineation will be as described below. The RCA widths may be increased 
where necessary to achieve riparian management goals and objectives, or decreased where widths 
are not needed to attain RMOs or avoid adverse effects to aquatic and riparian-dependent species. 
Standard RCA widths for the following categories of stream or water body shall be delineated as follows: 

Fish-bearing streams: RCAs consist of the stream and the area on either side of 
the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the 
inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of 
riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site potential trees, or 
300 feet slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), 
whichever is greatest. 

Permanently flowing non fish-bearing streams: RCAs consist of the stream and 
the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream 
channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year 
floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the 
height of one site potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both 
sides of the stream channel) , whichever is greatest. 

Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than one acre: RCAs consist of 
the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian 
vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of 
moderately and highly unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site 
• potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool 
elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, 
or lake, whichever is greatest. 

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than one acre, 
landslides, and landslide-prone areas: This category includes features with high 
variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum the RCAs must 
include: 

a. the extent of landslides and landslide prone areas. 

b. the intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge. 

c. the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of 
the riparian vegetation. 






PARIAN CONSBftmTKHI AWMS (RCAs) 



d. for key and priority watersheds as defined by PACFISH and INFISH, the area 
from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone 
area to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet 
slope distance, whichever is greatest. 

e. for watersheds not identified as key or priority watersheds, the area from the 
edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide prone area to a 
distance equal to the height of one-half site potential tree, or 50 feet slope 
distance, whichever is greatest. 

In non-forested rangeland ecosystems, the RCA width for permanently flowing streams, fish- 
bearing and non fish-bearing, is the extent of the 100-year floodplain. 

Alternative 3 

RCA delineation is the same as Alternative 2, with the following exceptions: 

♦ RCAs will be delineated for all Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands within the project 
area (as opposed to only watersheds containing anadromous and native inland fish or bull trout 
as in Alternative 2) . 

♦All intermittent streams will receive a minimum of 100 feet width on either side of the stream. 

♦ Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale shall be completed prior to modifying RCA widths. 

Alternatives 4 and 6 

Ecological functions, processes, and disturbance mechanisms are guides for use and protection 
priorities in riparian areas. Boundaries between riparian areas and upslopes may need adjustment 
to address each of the larger scale disturbance effects that may negatively or positively affect 
unique habitats or sensitive species in riparian environments. The actual size of riparian areas 
depends on local characteristics that define them; the dimensions of entire riparian areas are not 
always proportional to the size of aquatic systems. 

RCAs are delineated into zones or gradients of influence, with an inner zone (zone 1) where many 
primary processes and functions occur and an outer zone (zone 2) where processes and functions 
occur but at different, less important (secondary) levels to the stream channel. The outer riparian 
zone also functions as a transition and buffer between upslope uses and disturbances and the 
aquatic environment. Zoning delineates major influence areas, establishing a basis for different 
levels of disturbance and vegetation management in each zone. This scheme sets the foundation 
for cumulative effects determination that is spatially-sensitive in considering watershed disturbance. 

Although the concept of zones applies to forestland and rangeland environments, it is more difficult 
to apply in rangelands. For the purposes of this document, zones are delineated only in forested 
environments. In rangeland environments, floodprone width is used to delineate RCAs. 

Forested Lands 

Zone 1 is the inner riparian area; it is the primary riparian community and energy influence area. 
It is most important for protection and maintenance of instream conditions. It also serves to 
transition processes, functions, and disturbances from streams to floodplains and adjacent 
riparian areas. Zone 1 is the area most sensitive to land management activities. 

Zone 2 is the outer riparian area. It supports additional riparian area processes and functions (for 
example, microclimate) and also is a buffer area capable of absorbing disturbances from the 
uplands. It is the interface and transition between the inner riparian area and the uplands. In 



'.'■.■. : .'. : ; : .-"' : ■■■":■.■" 



steeper landscapes where soils are subject to surface erosion this zone may need extension using 
the slope adjustment factor. This extended area is referred to as Zone 2b in Table 3-5. 

Areas with landslides or that are unstable or landslide prone will also be included in the RCA. 

Table 1 displays the dominant processes, functions, and disturbance mechanisms for the two 
riparian zones in perennial and intermittent stream environments. The table is not inclusive. 
Perennial and intermittent streams were separated because processes, functions, and disturbance 
mechanisms for these systems are different. Intermittent streams often have steeper adjacent 
sideslopes and can be more prone to slope instability. 

RCA Delineation Process 

RCA delineation is based on three indicators: site potential tree heights (see discussion below), 
extent of floodprone width, or riparian vegetation width, whichever provides the greatest protection 
to aquatic and riparian resources. 

Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH). The definition of "site potential tree" for purposes of defining 
widths is: "The average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or older) for a 
given site class" (FEMAT 1993, p.V-34). 

The following site potential tree heights shall be used as minimum heights for the three forested 
potential vegetation groups (PVGs) in the project area. 

PVG Minimum SPTH (feet) 

Dry Forest 120 

Moist Forest 150 

Cold Forest 90 



Table 1. Dominant Processes, Functions, and Disturbance Mechanisms for 
Perennial and Intermittent Streams. 

Variables 



Shade for stream temperature 

Shade for riparian species 

Large wood delivery to streams 

Large wood delivery to riparian areas 

Leaf and other organic matter inputs 

Riparian microclimate 

Buffer for water quality 

Nutrient and energy to streams 

Habitat: aquatic species 

Habitat: riparian dependent species 

Habitat/migration for terrestrial species 

Root strength 

Soil moisture & temperature 

Sediment trapping 

Flooding * 

Debris flows 

Fire* 

Insects and Disease * 



Perennial/Intermittent 


Perennial 


Intermittent 


Zone 1 


Zone 2 


Zone 2 


P 


S 


n/a 


P 


S 


P 


P 


s 


P 


P 


p 


P 


P 


s 


s 


P 


s 


P 


P 


p 


P 


P 


s 


s 


P 


s 


s 


P 


s 


p 


P 


p 


p 


P 


s 


s 


P 


s 


p 


P 


s 


p 


P 


s 


s 


P 


p 


p 


S 


s 


p 


s 


s 


p 



P=primary emphasis; S=secondary emphasis: 
*Primary natural disturbance mechanisms 



■ ii ■■■ i ■■ msmm 

. . /. ." . .■ ■ 



■ ■ ■ ■ ... 

The average height for dominant trees on any given site is a function of tree capabilities and site 
quality. Tree capabilities include species and genetic influences. Site quality refers to a complex 
integration of physical, chemical, and biological elements. The heights presented in the table above 
are coarse averages based on data (site index tables) from the project area for several different tree 
species on average to good sites. Local site index tables, species-specific tables, or site-specific data 
provide more accurate information than these averages. See table 3-5 for direction on modification. 

Slope Adjustment Factor. Adjustment of stream RCA widths for slope uses a curve based on 
probable sediment travel distance from concentrated sources of erosion and sediment from roads 
(Ketcheson and Megahan 1996). The curve does not predict the volume of sediment reaching a 
stream or moving a certain distance, but rather predicts probabilities that road-related sediment 
particles will travel at least as far as the distance calculated using the curve. The curve is based 
on data from Idaho batholith soils (Ketcheson and Megahan, 1996); it may over-predict erosional 
processes for less erodible soils and may under-predict sediment transport for finer particles of 
eroded material. 

Other research (Megahan and Ketcheson 1996) found that in addition to slope, other significant 
predictors of transport distance were sediment volume, amount of obstructions, and source area. 
Volume alone accounts for 78 percent of the variance in sediment transport distance in the 
Megahan and Ketcheson data set, and is therefore a useful predictor of risk of sediment travel 
distance exceedance. Different levels of risk can be defined by varying volumes of sediment 
according to the distribution of the samples in the Megahan and Ketcheson data set. 

The general relationship of slope to sediment travel distance can be used as a simple and universal 
method of defining zone 2b that is sensitive to slope gradient, as shown in Figure 1 . Figure 1 
describes sediment travel distance as a function of slope gradient, for median values of 
obstructions and source area. For this curve the 90th percentile of volume is used to predict the 
transport distance that is, on average, exceeded only 10 percent of the time for any given slope. 
While not available prior to publication of the draft EIS, direction for using curves representing 
other percentiles should be evaluated. 

The process for delineation of forested riparian areas (perennial and intermittent streams) involves 
dividing RCAs into two zones: 

A. Minimum Widths for Perennial Streams 

Zone 1 equals one site potential tree height, or the extent of the floodprone area, or the 
extent of wet and moist riparian vegetation, whichever best maintains, protects, and 
restores the aquatic environment. 

Zone 2 equals one site potential tree height or the extent of dry riparian vegetation (zone 
2a), plus any width added for slope adjustment using figure 1 (zone 2b). 

B. Minimum Widths for Intermittent Streams 

Zone 1 equals one-half site potential tree height, or the extent of the floodprone area, or 
the extent of wet and moist riparian vegetation, whichever best maintains, protects, and 
restores the aquatic environment 

Zone 2 equals one-half site potential tree height, or the extent of dry riparian vegetation 
(zone 2a), plus any width added for slope adjustment using figure 1 (zone 2b). 

C. Additional Requirements Applicable for all Streams 

Additional special consideration is necessary where there are landslides and in landslide 
prone or unstable areas. Landslide prone determination shall be based on the procedure 
outlined in Tang and Montgomery (1995) or other comparable techniques. 

D. Total RCA Width 

Total RCA width is the sum of the widths determined from steps A through C. 



V 



Example: A perennial stream and an intermittent stream with a 40 percent sideslope, in moist forest (150 foot 
SPTH), would have the following RCA width: 

Perennial Stream RCA: 1 SPTH (zone 1) + 1 SPTH (zone 2a) + 10 (zone 2b) + (landslide prone) = 310 feet (each 
side of the stream). 

Intermittent Stream RCA: Vi SPTH (zone 1) + Vi SPTH (zone 2a) + 160 (zone 2b) + (landslide prone) = 310 feet 
(each side of the stream). 



600 



500 



w 400 

g 300 

a 

Cfi 

■fH 

Q 



200 



100 




1 I 

20 30 40 

Slope Gradient 



70 



Figure 1 . Slope Adjustment for Adding Width (Zone 2b) to Zone 2a for Intermittent Streams 



Rangeland Streams 

The process of delineation for rangeland riparian RCAs (perennial or intermittent streams) relies on 
floodprone widths by stream type, or the extent of potential natural riparian vegetation, whichever 
provides the greater protection to aquatic and riparian resources. Riparian vegetation can be 
delineated by aerial photographs or field inspection. Floodplain area is essentially equivalent to 
floodprone width defined by Rosgen (1994). 

The following steps can be used to determine the floodprone area. It is suggested that field units 
develop relationships between bankfull width and drainage area or use existing relationships for 
their area. 



1. Determine bankfull width for the drainage area above the point on the stream. 

2. Determine the stream type using Rosgen stream types (Rosgen 1994) from aerial photographs 
or existing classification data. 



3. Select the entrenchment ratio (ER), which is the average maximum, for the particular stream 
types (level I) from the following: 



Stream tvpe 


A 


B 


C 


E 


E 


G 


Entrenchment Ratio 


1.4 


2.2 


5.3 


56.9 


1.2 


1.3 



Because entrenchment ratio is non-applicable in D streamtypes (braided systems), riparian 
width shall be determined on a case by case basis using site-specific or local information. 

4. Calculate the floodprone area by multiplying the bankfull width and entrenchment ratio. 

Local drainage area and bankfull width relationships should be used in place of figure 2. Likewise, 
if field verified entrenchment ratios are known, this data should also be used in place of the 
average maximums shown in step 3. 



Example: A stream which has a drainage area of 100 square miles has an estimated bankfull width of 45 feet 
(figure 2 (Emmett 1975)). The stream type is known to be an C from classification data. The average maximum 
entrenchment ratio, or ER, for a C is 5.3. Multiplying the ER by the bankfull width (45 X 5.3) equals a 
floodprone width of 238 feet (for each side of the stream). 



Forested Land and Rangeland Ponds, Lakes, Reservoirs, and 
Wetlands 

RCAs for ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than one acre consist of: 

♦ the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or 

♦ the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or 

♦ the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or 

♦ a distance equal to the height of one site potential tree, or 

♦ 1 50 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and 
reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest. 

For ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands less than one acre, the above RCA delineation shall 
apply, except that the minimum slope distance shall be 100 feet. 



1 " 























































































































_^^- ' 


















__^- -""" 






a 




















s- 






































< 


























T^* 












OJO 








tf s^ 






























a 

a 






^" 
































Q ' 




















7~— 
















/ 














/ 














/ 












































i - 






j 









10 20 30 40 50 

Bankfull Width 



60 



70 



80 



90 



Figure 2. Relationship Between Bankfull Width and Drainage Area. 



Alternative 5 

RCA width varies among priority areas. 

Timber and livestock priority areas. In forested potential vegetation groups, RCA widths are based 
on the maximum needed to provide for individual stream input processes, and are defined by table 
2. Functions requiring protection are determined by site-specific analysis, and by ecosystem 
analysis only if site analysis does not provide the necessary information. 

In rangeland potential vegetation groups, no specific RCAs are delineated; however, there are 
requirements in table 3-5 for Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and maintenance and protection 
of water quality. 

Other priority areas. RCA delineation as described under Alternative 4 shall apply. 

Alternative 7 

Delineation of RCA widths are the same as for Alternative 2 with the following exceptions: 
♦All intermittent streams require 150 feet minimum width. 
♦ Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale is required prior to changing any standard width. 



Table 2. RCA Widths, Timber Priority Areas, Alternative 5 



Function 



Medium to Large Streams 



Small Streams 



Water/Bank Stability: 
Constrained Channels 

Water/Bank Stability: 

Unconstrained 

Channels 

Canopy 

Large Woody 
Debris 



Litter 

Nutrients 

Sediment from 
Surface Erosion 

Inner Gorge Sediment 
from Mass Failures 

Gravel 



Up to 20 feet 

Up to 1 effective tree height 
around all active channel 
migration zones 

Up to 75 feet around all active 
channel migration zones 

Up to 1 effective tree height 

around all active channel 

migration zones 

100 feet around all active 
channel migration zones 

100 feet around all channels if 
of concern to anadromous fish 

Roads: 150 feet; Ground- 
based skidding: 50 feet 

High-risk sites identified through 
land type inventories for each forest 

Bank erosion and mass failure 
sites identified site specifically 



Up to 20 feet 

Up to 1 effective tree height 

around all active channel 

migration zones 

Up to 75 feet around all active 
channel migration zones 

50 feet around all active 
channel migration zones 

50 feet around all active 
channel migration zones 

50 feet around all channels if 
of concern to anadromous fish 

Roads: 150 feet; Ground- 
based skidding: 50 feet 

High-risk sites identified through 
land type inventories for each forest 

Bank erosion and mass failure 
sites identified site specifically 



SOURCE: Northwest Forest Resources Council 1995. 



"■. :: .: .■:.■, ■ ■■■ 



<J,Y M.4AM0&VENT OBJECTIVES (RMOs) 



Riparian Management Objectives 
(RMOs) 

Introduction 

Riparian Management Objective (RMO) values for stream channel conditions, when used in 
combination with objectives of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
(ICBEMP), provide criteria to help assess attainment of aquatic and riparian goals as described in 
the Desired Range of Future Conditions (DRFC: see Chapter 3). These values provide a description 
and characterization of watershed, riparian, and stream channel processes and existing conditions 
that can be used to guide management activity design, implementation, and monitoring. RMOs are 
not expected to be met instantaneously but rather would be achieved over time. 

As indicated below, some RMOs apply to forested ecosystems, some to rangeland ecosystems, and 
some to all ecosystems. Actions that reduce habitat quality are inconsistent with the purpose of 
ICBEMP direction. However, the intent of RMOs are not to establish a ceiling for what constitutes 
good habitat conditions. The following statements provide the intent for use of the RMOs and their 
purpose in a comprehensive conservation program: 

1. RMOs are criteria to help evaluate progress towards attainment of watershed, aquatic and 
riparian goals described within the DRFC. 

2. Interim RMOs are not to be viewed as independent from other components of the aquatic 
conservation strategy; rather, they are part of an aquatic conservation program. RMOs are 
not always sensitive to immediate effects but rather exhibit response to cumulative effects and 
factors influencing channel history over time. 

3. Interim RMOs do not replace State and Federal water quality standards promulgated under 
Federal Clean Water Act or State laws, but they should complement these standards in 
providing measurable habitat attributes. 

Procedure for RMO Application 

RMOs apply to all perennial streams during those times that the streams support aquatic life. 
Effects of land management activities on intermittent streams may influence the attainment of 
RMOs in perennial streams. All instream and riparian variables should be used, in combination, to 
provide a comprehensive synopsis of watershed, riparian, and aquatic conditions, since placing 
emphasis on interpretations of individual variables may lead to erroneous conclusions related to 
watershed, riparian, and aquatic conditions. 

RMO application or development can follow these steps: 

1. The values apply where ecologically attainable. Locally developed RMOs supported with 
information from ecosystem analysis is preferred because of the variable nature of streams 
within the project area. Stream conditions can vary from disturbances and channel evolution 
histories that influenced channel form and conditions. It is recommended that National 
Forest and BLM managers conduct their own analyses due to the variable conditions in the 
project area. Managers should consider using similar techniques described by Overton et al. 
(1995) to define appropriate RMOs. Riparian Management Objectives should be developed 
from evaluation of reference conditions in similar landforms, climate, stream type and valley 
bottom settings, and potential vegetation. In all cases, the rationale supporting these 
changes, and the effects of the changes shall be documented. 



2. Use information from step 1 to develop management actions for conserving or restoring 
watershed, riparian, and channel processes. 

3. Monitor implementation and effectiveness of management actions to determine if they have 
the intended results. Provide feedback information for future management objectives, actions, 
and evaluation of RMOs. 



Alternative 1 

Most existing land-use plans identify aquatic and riparian habitat variables that are used to 
measure condition and assess attainment of land-use plan goals and objectives. Typically, these 
variables differ among land-use plans. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

In PACFISH (2/24/95) and INFISH (7/28/95), landscape-scale RMO values describing good habitat 
for anadromous and inland native fish were developed, using stream inventory data for pool 
frequency, large woody debris, bank stability, lower bank angle, and width-to-depth ratio. 
Applicable published and non-published scientific literature was used to define favorable water 
temperatures. All of the described habitat features may not occur in a specific segment of stream 
within a watershed, but all generally should occur at the watershed scale for stream systems of 
moderate to large size (3rd to 6th order). 

Riparian Management Objective values represent a good starting point to describe the desired 
condition for fish habitat. National Forest and BLM managers are encouraged to establish 
site-specific RMOs. Riparian Management Objectives should be refined to better reflect conditions 
that are attainable in a specific watershed or stream reach based on local landform, climate, 
stream type and valley bottom settings, and potential vegetation. Modification of RMO values in 
Alternative 2 requires completion of Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale or site-specific 
analysis to provide the ecological basis for the change. In Alternative 3, modification of RMO 
values requires completion of Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. In all cases, the 
rationale supporting these changes and the effects of the changes shall be documented. 

Riparian" Management Objective values for six environmental features are identified in table 3. 
These features are good indicators of ecosystem health, are quantifiable, and are subject to 
accurate, repeatable measurements. 

Alternatives 4 and 6 

RMO values for Alternatives 4 and 6 describe watershed-scale (5th- to 6th-field HUC) habitat 
conditions for both EIS planning areas within the Interior Columbia Basin Project area. Attributes 
are divided into two categories: Instream variables and riparian vegetation. Two options for some 
RMO values are presented here for public review and comment. 

In Alternative 4, modification of RMO values requires completion of Ecosystem Analysis at the 
Watershed Scale. In Alternative 6. Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale or site-specific 
analysis can be used to modify RMO values if the change results in equal or greater protection to 
aquatic and riparian-associated species. Standard EM-SI 5 describes modification conditions and 
procedures. The values in Tables 4 and 5 shall apply if ecosystem analysis or site-specific NEPA 
analysis is not completed. 






.7 7 .'■.;.-.,..■. 7.:..::7: , - : ; 



Table 3. RMO Values for Alternatives 2 and 3 



Habitat Feature 



Values 



Pool Frequency- 
fall systems) 
Varies by channel 
width. 

Water Temperature 



Large Woody Debris 

(forested systems) 

Bank Stability 

(rangeland systems) 

Lower Bank Angle 

(rangeland systems) 

Width/Depth Ratio 

(all systems) 



Wetted width 
(feet) 



10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150 200 



Pools per mile 96 56 47 26 23 11 



14 



12 



No measurable increase in maximum water temperature (7 day 
moving average of daily maximum temperature measured as the 
average of the maximum daily temperature of the warmest 
consecutive 7 day period). Maximum water temperatures below 
59°F within adult bull trout holding habitat and below 48°F within 
bull trout spawning and rearing habitats. 

Maximum water temperatures below 64°F within anadromous fish 
migration and rearing habitats and below 60°F within anadromous 
fish spawning habitats. 

> 20 pieces per mile: > 12 inch diameter; > 35 foot length. 

> 80 percent stable. 

> 75 percent of banks with <90 degree angle (i.e.. undercut). 
< 10, mean wetted width divided by mean depth 



Procedure for Determining Riparian Vegetation RMO 

Functionality of aquatic and riparian environments can be more fully evaluated with the inclusion 
of riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation is generally more sensitive to immediate effects from 
management activities. In some vegetation and valley bottom settings, riparian vegetation can be 
responsive to restoration in short timeframes. Most instream RMOs are dependent upon riparian 
vegetation condition; therefore, a riparian vegetation RMO was included for Alternatives 4 and 6. 

The following steps summarize a method to assess similarity of current riparian vegetation to 
potential riparian vegetation based on information presented within the ICBEMP area. The 
Riparian Plant Association Groups and Associated Valley Bottom Types of the Columbia River Basin 
(Manning and Engelking 1995) should be used to determine the riparian vegetation RMO. See 
figure 3 for a complete display of the five steps for assessing similarity. 

1. Identify the Potential Vegetation Group (PVG) in which the riparian area occurs (for example, 
dry forest) . 

2. Compare the existing vegetation with the probable riparian vegetation to assess how similar or 
dissimilar the existing riparian vegetation is to the potential. 

The existing riparian vegetation should be at least 60 percent similar to the potential vegetation to 
meet the RMO. If there is less than 60 percent similarity and it is not attributable to absence of 
the potential riparian vegetation group within the valley bottom setting, then management actions 
that move riparian vegetation toward the potential should occur. 



Table 4. RMO Values for Alternatives 4 and 6 



Category 



Values (Applicable where ecologically attainable) 1 



I. Instream Variables 

Option A 

Large Pool Frequency 
Pool Frequency 

(all systems) 

Varies by channel 

width. 

Pool Depth/Width 

Large Wood Frequency 

(forested systems) 

Fine Sediment 

Option B 

Large Pool Frequency 
Pool Frequency 
Pool Depth /Width 
Large Wood Frequency 
(forested systems) 
Single Wood Frequency 
(forested systems) 
Fine Sediment 

Bank Stability 
(non-forested systems) 

Temperature 



To be developed 
Wetted width 10 
(feet) 



20 



25 



50 



75 100 125 150 200 



26 23 



14 



Pools per mile 96 56 47 

To be developed 

> 20 pieces per mile; > 12 inch diameter; > 35 foot length. 



12 



< 20% surface fine sediment (6.4 mm) in spawning habitat or < 30% 
cobble embeddedness in rearing habitat. 



See Table 5 for values 



>80 percent bank stability in ERUs 1-12 

>90 percent bank stability in ERU 13 (Overton et al. 1995) 

For waters supporting cold water beneficial uses - except bull trout 
habitat and salmonid spawning, incubation, and fry emergence - the 
maximum temperature will be below 64°F. In waters supporting 
salmonid spawning, incubation, and fry emergence except bull 
trout, the maximum temperature will be below 55°F for the specific 
times of the year when these uses occur. In waters supporting bull 
trout habitat the maximum temperature will be below 50°F. except 
for those periods of spawning to fry emergence when the maximum 
temperature will be below 48°F. All temperatures will be measured 
as a 7-day moving average of daily maximum temperature. 



II. Riparian Vegetation 



Applies to all forest and range riparian areas: mature and old forest, 
and late ecological status range riparian conditions adapted to fire 
regimes and other disturbances characteristic for the site. Riparian 
vegetation RMOs should be measured by the percent similarity of 
current riparian vegetation to the mature forest and late ecological 
status range riparian community/composition. The percent 
similarity shall be greater than 60 percent (USDA 1992). The 
stepwise procedure for determining similarity is outlined in 
figure 3 and in the riparian vegetation RMO discussion. 

1 Where values are not ecologically attainable, data and rationale to support this conclusion shall be 
documented. RMOs values shall be met as closely as ecologically possible. 






W^^-^r'' ■■■■■'■' ■■'■'■" 

siisii t. lamm:mmimMi!!M>m«eiimmmmi 



Table 5. Instream RMO values for Option B*. 



Slope 
EIS Area 1 Class 



Large Pools 
Per Average 
Riffle Width 2 



Pools Per 
Average 
Riffle Width 3 



Mean Max 

Depth/Pool 

Width 



Large Wood 
Per Average 
Riffle Width 4 











Percentile 








50 


75 


50 


75 50 75 


50 


75 


<2% 


0.01 


0.04 


0.04 


0.09 0.16 0.19 


0.06 


0.16 


>2% 


0.01 


0.04 


0.03 


0.07 0.21 0.27 


0.07 


0.21 



Fine sediment Surface fine sediment levels shall be developed by local field units for their area. 

Interims for ERU 13 only: Mean surface fines (<6.0 mm) as measured in pool tails 
and low gradient riffles, are described in Overton et al. (1995): 



Channel 


Plutonic Geol 


3giC 


Volcanic Geologic 


Metamorphic Geologic 


Type 


Type 




Type 


Type 


A 


26 




25 


14 


B 


23 




27 


16 


C 


37 




17 


no data, development by 
local field units 



* Note: The range of RMO values for the Eastside and UCRB EIS areas are displays of the 50th and 75th 
Percentile for natural and near natural stream data distribution. All values except pool width/mean 
maximum depth are normalized by stream width. Riparian Management Objectives values greater than or 
equal to the 50th percentile met the standard where ecologically attainable. Where values are not 
ecologically attainable, data and rationale to support this conclusion shall be documented. Riparian 
Management Objective values will be met as closely as is ecologically possible. To calculate large pools, pools, 
large wood, and single wood per mile from table values, use the following conversion: number per mile = 
(table value) x5280/average riffle width in feet. 

1 Data is not continuous over the entire project area particularly for ERUs 10, 11, and 12. Caution should 
be used when making interpretations from values in these areas. It also should be noted that most 
stream inventory data was collected from forested stream systems and may not be applicable to 
rangeland stream systems. 

2 The number of pool channel units with a maximum depth greater than 0.8 m (2.6 feet) and surface area 
greater than 20 m 2 (215 ft 2 ) per the reach mean riffle width. 

3 The number of pool channel units per reach mean riffle width. 

4 The number of pieces of wood per reach mean riffle width, surveyed with the USFS Pacific Northwest 
Region stream inventory protocol. Tallied wood includes all pieces with diameters greater than 20 inches 
and lengths greater than 35 ft. These values should only be used as a reference condition in forested 
landscapes in eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. 



::::::::::;;::;: ^^^^■;-^j^;;^:;^:-:^:^-: 



STEP 1 



Identify Potential Vegetation Group 



STEP 2 



Identify Potential Vegetation Type 

and 

Valleybottom Type 



STEP 3 



Identify Potential Riparian 
Vegetation 



STEP 4 



Determine Existing Riparian 
Vegetation Group 



STEP 5 



Compare Potential Riparian 

Vegetation Group to Existing 

Riparian Vegetation Group 



Figure 3. Stepwise Summary for Determining Riparian Vegetation RMOs. 



Alternative 



Timber Priority Areas Within Forested Environments 

RMOs are defined not on the basis of instream standards but on the basis of key channel and 
habitat characteristics in the watershed of concern, and they are locally developed. These 
measures are then compared with those from streams of highly similar channel and watershed 
geomorphic character that are judged to fully support the waters beneficial uses, in order to 
produce reference conditions. Determination of "fully support" must include documentation of 
assumptions on which judgements are based, allowing for revision over time as new information 
becomes available. Benchmarks based on the reference conditions can then be established for 
instream characteristics and remeasured over time to evaluate change. 

A benchmark-based system for developing RMOs can be summarized as follows: 

a. Existing riparian conditions are measured and compared with reference conditions, where 
possible, to establish benchmarks. 



s^is^ 



b. Prescriptions (site-specific standards) are developed to ensure high levels of function even when 
the relationship of existing conditions to natural or reference conditions remains uncertain. 

c. Monitoring is conducted in an adaptive management framework in order to answer four key 
questions: (1) Was the situation diagnosis correct? (2) Was the prescription correct? (3) Was 
the prescription implemented? (4) Was the prescription effective? See Appendix 3- 1 for more 
detail. 

In summary, RMOs relevant to each stream input process of concern are integrated into the 
analysis and subsequent management decision-making system. 

Livestock Priority Areas Within Rangeland Environments 

Riparian Management Objectives are to be based on the definition of Proper Functioning Condition 
as follows: 

Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform. or large 
woody debris is present to: 

♦ dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and 
improving water quality; 

♦ filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; 

♦ improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; 

♦ develop root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action; 

♦ develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, 
duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and 

♦ support greater biodiversity. 

Other Priority Areas 

Riparian Management Objectives values as described for Alternatives 4 and 6 will apply to other 
priority areas. 

Alternative 7 

Riparian Management Objectives provide a measure of whether land management practices are 
providing watershed and habitat characteristics that will support aquatic species. If conditions at the 
watershed scale or site-specific scale are below these criteria, then it must be determined why the 
watershed is not meeting objectives. Where land management activities are the cause for not meeting 
riparian management objectives, strategies need to be implemented to restore watershed condition. 

These RMOs are based in part on information from PACFISH, the NMFS PACFISH Biological 
Opinion (USDC 1995a) and the NMFS Land and Resource Management Plans Biological Opinion 
(USDC 1995b), Rhodes et al. (1994) and Peterson et al. (1992). These RMO values were based on 
the biological habitat requirements of fish and aquatic resources or based on conditions in 
undeveloped watersheds. The method of adjusting RMO values is through Ecosystem Analysis if it 
shows that habitat recovery is enhanced and not retarded. Below are RMOs for sediment delivery, 
fine sediment, and cobble embeddedness. In addition, modifications to PACFISH/INFISH RMOs 
are listed below for streambank stability and temperature. All other PACFISH/INFISH RMOs as 
described for Alternative 2 apply. 

1. Sediment Delivery Standard: Reduce delivery of sediment to streams to no more than 20 
percent over natural from all anthropogenic sources in watersheds containing current or 



. . . ■ . ,■,■.■■.■:.■■■.■■:■:■.■:■.■:■.■:■.■.■.■:■.■:■:■,.:■:■:■. 

. . ■ . . .:....■.. ■ ■ ■ . 

: - ;i;i=^ • ;.'■-■:■:■■.;,■ '.'..:'.:. ..::..:.:.:.:..::...;.;:: yr;^^:—:-^ ,,..;...... : : : ■:■■■ , : . :; .; ;, • ■ ... ^:i;.:.: £;S ;. 



historical spawning or rearing habitat, unless it can be shown through Ecosystem Analysis 
based on peer reviewed science that stream habitat conditions can improve and that substrate 
and pool standards can be met with a different sediment standard. 

2. Fine Sediment Standard: Limit stream surface fine sediment (less than 6.4 mm in diameter) 
averages to less than 20 percent in spawning habitat. 

3. Cobble Embeddedness Standard: Limit stream cobble embeddedness to less than 30 percent 
in rearing habitat. 

4. Bank Stability Standard: Ninety percent of all stream banks should be in a stable condition. 

5. Water Temperature Standard: For waters supporting cold water beneficial uses, except bull 
trout habitat and salmonid spawning, incubation, and fry emergence, the maximum 
temperature will be below 64° F. In waters supporting salmonid (except bull trout) spawning, 
incubation, and fry emergence, the maximum temperature will be below 55° F for the specific 
times of the year when these uses occur. In waters supporting bull trout habitat the maximum 
temperature will be below 50° F, except for those periods of spawning-to-fry emergence, when 
the maximum temperature will be below 48° F. All temperatures will be measured as a 
seven-day moving average of daily maximum temperature. 

Coarse Screening Process 

The coarse screening process will be used at a watershed scale (5th- to 6th-field HUC) to determine 
the consistency of activities with the goals of conserving and improving aquatic habitat. In some 
situations it may be desirable to apply the coarse screening process at smaller or larger scales 
because of habitat use or environmental conditions within the watershed. The screening process 
employs three sets of filters to assess the consistency of land management activities with 
conservation and improvement of aquatic habitat: 

♦ in-channel criteria (surface fine sediment, cobble embeddedness, streambank stability, and 
temperature); 

♦ land management criteria (sediment delivery, RCAs, timber harvest, grazing, roads, and aquatic 
reserves); and 

♦ data availability. 

Generally, activities should be considered to be consistent with the conservation and improvement 
of aquatic habitat when it complies with all aspects of the filters. Figure 4 represents a flow for the 
coarse screening process. 



: -if 



High Risk Activities 1 



Moderate Risk Activities 2 



Are sufficient data available on 
in-channel habitat and land 
management in the watershed. 



Yes 



The watershed meets all 
standards for in-channel habitat 
and land management or 
exhibits an improving trend 
measured over five years in all 
in-channel variables. 



Yes 



Examples of high risk activities include 
road construction, activities within 
aquatic reserves, harvesting within 
RCAs, and riparian livestock grazing. 



2 Examples of moderate risk activities 
include upland livestock grazing when 
sediment standards are met, upland 
logging when sediment and temperature 
standards are met. 



Defer activities that can affect 
attainment of standards until 
data are collected and summarized 



Defer activities within RCAs 
that can forestall recovery. 
Continue efforts to meet all 
in-channel standards by 
undertaking active restoration 
activities as needed. Monitor 
in-channel habitat parameters to 
document change in condition. 



Proceed with project and 
regulatory and public review. 



Defer or modify proposed activity. 



Are sufficient data available for 
in-channel habitat variables used 
standards and watershed/land 
management condition. 



Yes 



Do in-channel conditions in this 
watershed meet all standards or 
show an improving trend as 
measured over a five-year period. 



Yes 



Are land management standards 
met or exceeded in this watershed. 



1 



Will the proposed activity 
violate in-channel and land 
management standards. 

Yes 



Can the screening standards be 
relaxed yet still maintain excellent 
aquatic habitat. 



Yes 



Consider relaxing specific land 
management standards to allow 
proposed activity within the 
watershed. 



Figure 4. Coarse screening process for proposed activities (adapted from Rhodes et al. 1994) 



■ ■ 





Literature Cited 



Emmett, W. W. 1975. The channels and waters of the upper Salmon River area, Idaho. US 
Geological Survey Professional Paper 8 70- A. 

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: 
An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, National 
Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 
Park Service, and Environmental Protection Agency. 

(INFISH) Inland Native Fish Strategy. 1995. Environmental assessment: Decision notice and 
finding of no significant impact. Interim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in 
eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada. [Place of 
publication unknown] : U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inter mountain, Northern, 
and Pacific Northwest regions. 

Ketcheson, G. L. and W. F. Megahan. 1996. Sediment production and downslope sediment 
transport from forest roads in granitic watersheds. Research Paper INT-RP-486. Ogden, UT: USDA 
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

Manning, M. M. and L. D. Engelking. 1995. DRAFT report on the riparian plant association 
groups and associated valley bottom types of the Columbia River Basin. USDA Forest Service. 

Megahan, W.F. and G.L. Ketcheson. 1996. Predicting downslope travel of granitic sediments from 
forest roads in Idaho. J. American Water Resources Association. 32:371-382. 

Northwest Forest Resources Council. 1995. National Forest riparian and aquatic habitat 
management strategy (Fish 2000): An alternative for the protection and restoration ofanadromous 
fish habitat in eastern Oregon and Washington. 32 pp. 

Overton, C. K., J. D. Mclntyre, R. Armstrong, S. L. Whitwell, and K. A. Duncan. 1995. User's 
guide to fish habitat: descriptions that represent natural conditions in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho. 
General Technical Report INT-GAR-322. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research 
Station. 142 pp. 

(PACFISH) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 
of Land Management. 1995. Decision notice /decision record, FONSI, EA, Appendices for the interim 
strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, 
Idaho, and portions of California. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 
and U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 

Peterson, N. P., A. Henry, and T. P. Quin. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid 
habitat: Some suggested parameters and target conditions. TAW-F3-92-001. Seattle, WA: Center 
for Streamside Studies, University of Washington. 

Rhodes, J. J., D. A. McCullough, and F. A. Espinosa, Jr. 1994. A coarse screening process for 
evaluation of the effects of land management activities on salmon spawning and rearing habitat in 
ESA consultations. Portland, OR: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). 203 pp. 

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22(3): 169-199. 

Tang, S. M. and D. R. Montgomery. 1995. Riparian buffers and potentially unstable ground. 
Environmental Management 19(5):741-749. 






(USDA) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide. 
Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 60 pp. 

(USDC) U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995a. Endangered 
Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion; Implementation of Interim Strategies for 
managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and 
portions of California (PACFISHj. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. 53 pp. 

(USDC) U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995b. Endangered 
Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion; Land and Resource Management Plans for the 
Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National 
Forests. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. 103 pp. 



■■:■:■■ ,:.y/ ::■■■■■■■■ :■■■.■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ 



■stside Draft EIS/P, 



Appendix 4-1 

Geographical 

Information 

System (GIS) Data 

and Databases 




This Appendix contains 
the following items: 

• Introduction 

• Data and Analysis 

• Documentation, 

Management, and 
Sharing of Data 

• Summary 



vr||l:;ia,^ 



fe'SSSS 



' ' . . ' 






; 



Introduction 



The following has been excerpted from the Information System, Development and Documentation 
(Gravenmier et al. 1996) chapter of the Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia 
Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Quigley and Arbelbide 1996b). 

Land use planning that is regional in scope requires tools more sophisticated than those typically 
used for landscape and resource analysis. Traditionally, maps, graphs, charts, and diagrams have 
been used to analyze and visualize the natural environment. Today, Geographic Information Systems 
(GISs) provide the tools and techniques that allow regional projects to be accomplished in a highly 
efficient, integrated, and accurate manner. 

A GIS is especially well-suited to dealing with spatial and temporal problems (problems of dimension, 
space, and time). Without advanced computer technology, software, and trained and experienced 
individuals, the volume of data collected in support of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 
Management Project (ICBEMP) would have been a great burden. GIS provided the means to dynamically 
model and analyze living systems throughout the Basin in ways that were impractical only a decade ago. 

The ICBEMP was the largest interagency database development effort undertaken by the agencies 
involved, covering more than 144 million acres. A Spatial Analysis Team was established to manage 
data and support the analytical needs of the ICBEMP. This team was comprised of BLM, Forest 
Service, and contract personnel who were located in Walla Walla and Spokane Washington; Portland, 
Oregon; Missoula, Montana; Wenatchee, Washington; and Boise and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho . The 
interagency group was charged with the collection of available GIS data, capture of new data, and 
analysis to support the assessment and EISs. The Spatial Analysis Team was also responsible for the 
documentation and distribution of data to project personnel, federal agencies, tribal governments, the 
general public, and other interested parties. 



Data and Analysis 



Over 170 different GIS data layers or themes were compiled or created in support of the ICBEMP 
Assessment and the development of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EISs. Table 1 
lists the data themes and the scale at which they were collected. The data layers were derived 
from source maps, photos, or transfer media ranging from 1:12,000 to 1:4.000,000 in scale. 
Some GIS layers mapped features continuously across the entire project area while others covered 
discrete areas only (for example, subsample areas). Major data providers included individual 
administrative units of the Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental 
Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Bonneville Power 
Administration, universities, state agencies, and non-governmental organizations. 

Analysis of data occurred in GIS and in the relational database environment. GIS analysis used 
two data architectures: vector (lines, polygons, and points) and raster (matrices or grids). Some of 
the data were created in vector form (such as information captured from a map, like ownership 
boundaries), while other data were created in raster form. Vector data were sometimes converted 
to raster data for the analysis process. 

Information that was gathered specifically for this project were either scanned or digitized once a 
manuscript of the data was created. These digital data sets were then attributed and brought into 
the GIS, Further attribution, error checking, and analysis took place before it was placed into the 
corporate (master) data structure. These checks included manual inspection against other 
sources of data and logic checks both within the data set and with other GIS data sets. Errors, 
inconsistencies, and anomalies were resolved with the help of field specialists or by other means. 






. :;--'---... .,..■■.■■■'.'. ■ ■■ ' ' ■■■:-:-:::::■■■■'" ■■<<'-:~~~':S: .™E" ™™™"'"'""' K ";;.".". ^',' J:',' 



In the analysis of the affected environment and environmental consequences for the alternatives, a 
variety of systems and methods were used to evaluate and analyze the large quantities of existing 
and derived data. GIS played a key role in tying the Columbia River Basin Successional Model 
(CRBSUM) vegetative outputs to the management region, ecological reporting units (ERUs), and 
subwatersheds. Conventional databases were essential to synthesizing, summarizing, and reporting 
information. Table 2 outlines and briefly describes each of the major databases that were used for 
analysis. Some of the databases can be spatially referenced to an existing ICBEMP GIS data layer. 

Documentation, Management, and 
Sharing of Data 

In a project such as the ICBEMP, where many cooperators shared data obtained from many sources, 
documentation of data is a necessity. The documentation of data, often referred to as metadata or 
data about data, is in the process of becoming standardized within the Federal Government. In 
1994 Executive Order 12906 gave the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), currently chaired 
by the Secretary of Interior, direction to establish the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) 
including the "technology, policies, standards and human resources necessary to acquire, process, 
store, distribute, and improve utilization of geospatial data." Part of that order calls for standardized 
documentation of data. Each agency must use the standard developed by the FGDC (FGDC Content 
Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata) to document new data it collects or produces. 

At the time initial planning began for the ICBEMP, the FGDC metadata standard was in early 
draft form. The project adopted the metadata standard previously developed by the Northwest 
Forest Plan effort. The resulting metadata are generally compatible but less extensive than what 
is described in the 1994 FGDC standard. 

For management of metadata, SPUDD (Spatial Unified Data Dictionary), an Oracle database 
application, was used. SPUDD was developed by Forest Service and BLM personnel for use in the 
Northwest Forest Plan effort and was enhanced during this project. 

The ICBEMP began to release spatial data and maps to the public and government agencies in 
November 1994. Unlike previous projects, the data and maps were made available while the 
project data were being analyzed. A brief policy paper was prepared to provide interested 
individuals with the data release objectives, the processes for completing requests for data and 
maps, and cost information. Copies of this policy and the forms for ordering data can be obtained 
from the project office. 



Summary 



It must be remembered that the ICBEMP data has been gathered, for the most part, across a large 
area, for a specific purpose. Much of the data was of poor quality when compared to data that would 
be collected for a site-specific project at the individual subwatershed level. The expense of gathering 
data of better quality (that met project level analysis requirements) for the entire project area and 
aggregating it to the broadscale level was too great to justify both in cost and time with the fixed 
amount of resources available. Some data were derived from broad general maps, while other data 
were captured through intensive, large-scale photo interpretation means and high resolution image 
processing. The importance of using and understanding the metadata to determine the appropriate 
use of ICBEMP GIS data and databases cannot be overstated. Many of the GIS themes created or 
collected by the ICBEMP may be used for project level work where no finer resolution data exist. 
Additional information on data documentation and analysis processes used can be found in 
Gravenmier et al. (1996). 



tmi-^&mmM 



::::::::: :::7v::::::::::::::::^^^ 



Table 1 . Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
(ICBEMP) Geographic Information System (GIS) Data. 



Theme Name 



Extent 



Scale/Resolution 



Benthic Invertebrates 



Air Pollufion-Non -Attainment Areas 
Air Quality-Lake Monitoring Sites 
Air Quality Monitoring Sites for NADP 
Air Quality Monitoring Sites for NDDN 
Air Quality-Point Source Emissions 
Air Quality-Snowpack Monitoring Sites 
Air Quality-Source Emissions by County 
Class One Airsheds 
Climate-Average Dew Point 
Climate-Average Maximum Temperature 
Climate-Average Minimum Temperature 
Climate-Average Yearly Temperatures 
Climate-Total Solar Radiation 
Climate-Total Yearly Precipitation 
Climate-PRISM Precipitation Data 



Broadscale Disturbances from CRBSUM 

for Scenarios /Alts 
Carbon Stress Index (Assess. Cur /Hist) 
CRBSUM Current Potential Veg. Types 

(Assessment) 

CRBSUM Current Potential Veg Types (EIS) 
CRBSUM Current Vegetation Cover 

Types (Assessment) 
CRBSUM Current Vegetation Cover Types 

(EIS) 
CRBSUM Current Vegetation Structural 

Stages (Assessment) 
CRBSUM Current Vegetation Structural 

Stages (EIS) 
CRBSUM Historical Potential Veg Types 

(Assessment) 

CRBSUM Historical Potential Veg Types (EIS) 
CRBSUM Historical Veg. Cover Types 

(Assessment) 

CRBSUM Historical Veg. Cover Types (EIS) 
CRBSUM Historical Veg. Struct. Stages 

(Assessment) 

CRBSUM Historical Veg. Struct. Stages (EIS) 
CRBSUM Simulation (Alts.) Model 

Assignments 
Future Broadscale Vegetation by 

Scenario/Alt. -Cover Type 
Future Broadscale Vegetation by 

Scenario/Alt. -Structure 
Net Primary Productivity (Ass. Cur/Hist) 
Nutrient Avail. Index (Assess. Cur/ Hist) 
Water Stress Index (Assess. Cur/Hist) 



AQUATIC GROUP 

Omernik regions 9-12, 15 

ATMOSPHERIC GROUP 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

CRBSUM GROUP 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Landscape Characterization Area 
Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 
Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Landscape Characterization Area 
Landscape Characterization Area 
Landscape Characterization Area 



variable 



variable 

nearest second 

nearest second 

nearest second 

nearest second 

nearest minute 

county 

1:24k to 1:100,000 

2 kilometers 

2 kilometers 

2 kilometers 

2 kilometers 

2 kilometers 

2 kilometers 

2.5 minutes 



1 kilometer 

2 kilometers 
1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 
1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 
1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 
1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 
1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 

1 kilometer 

2 kilometers 
2 kilometers 
2 kilometers 



Airports 

Dams 

Diversions 

Railroads 

Road Density (Predicted) 

Roads-Broadscale-1 : 1M 

Roads-Broadscale-1 :2M 

Roads-Subsample 

Scenic Integrity (Assessment Version) 

Scenic Integrity (EIS Version) 

Sense of Place 

Sense of Place 

Streets (TIGER) 

Utility Corridors 

Utility Corridors-Energy Sources 



Census Blockgroups 

Census Blockgroups 

Census Tracts 

Isolated Timber Dependent Areas 

Populated Places- 1 : 100,000 (polygon) 

Populated Places DCW-1 : 1M (polygon) 

Towns-1 : 100,000 (point) 

Towns DCW-1 : 1 ,000,000 (point) 



Disturbance-Current Fire Regime 
Disturbance-Fire History Study Sites 

Disturbance-Fire Locations 
Disturbance-Historic Fire Regime 
Disturbance-Weather (Historic) 
Rural Population Wildland Interface 
Rural Population Wildland Interface 
Fire Risk 

Fisheries Distribution-Current 
Fish Hatcheries 



Aquatic Assessment Boundary 
ICBEMP Assessment Boundary- 
Columbia River Basin (CRB) Boundary 
Columbia River Basin-US Portion 
Consultation Watersheds (Section 7 ESA) 
Critical Watersheds-Amer Fisheries Soc 
High Priority Watersheds (Section 7 ESA) 
Inland Native Fish Strategy Bndry (USFS) 
Interior Columbia River Basin 
Lakes 
Lakes l:100,000-Enhanced 

Lakes and Reservoirs 1 :2M-Broadscale 
Lakes Classified by Water Quality 
Clusters 
PACFISH Boundaries (BLM/USFS Lands) 
Pollutant Sources-Water (CERCLA Sites) 
Pollutant Sources-Water (NPDES) 
Pollutant Sources-Water (RCRA) 



CULTURAL GROUP 




Assessment area 


1:1,000,000 


ID/MT/OR/WA 


nearest 10 seconds 


Assessment area 


1:100,000 


Assessment area 


1:1,000,000 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Western North America 


1:1,000,000 


Assessment area 


1:2,000,000 


Assessment area 


1:24k to 1:100,000 


Assessment area 


subwatershed 


Assessment area 


1 kilometer 


Assessment area 


1:500,000 


Three selected areas 


1000 acres 


CA/ID/MT/NV/UT/WY&E. OR/WA 


1:100,000 


Eleven Western states 


unknown 


Eleven Western states 


unknown 


DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP 




Socio-Economic Assessment Area 


1:100,000 


ID/MT/NV/OR/UT/WA/WY/no. CA 


1:100,000 


Socio-Economic Assessment Area 


1:100,000 


Assessment area 


1:2,000,000 


Socio-Economic Assessment Area 


1:100,000 


Assessment area 


1:1,000,000 


Socio-Economic Assessment Area 


1:100,000 


Western North America 


1:1,000,000 


DISTURBANCE GROUP 




Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


nearest minute 


/Canada 




Landscape Characterization Area 


point data 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


unknown 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


FISHERIES GROUP 




MT/WA 


1:100,000 


Assessment area 


point data 


HYDROLOGY GROUP 




Assessment area 


1:250,000 


Assessment area 


1:250,000 


Assessment area 


1:250,000 


Assessment area ' 


1:100,000 


ID/OR 


1:500,000 


OR 


unknown 


Assessment area 


l:126,720-l:250k 


Assessment area 


1:100,000 


Assessment area 


1:100,000 


Assessment area 


1:100,000 


Assessment area 


l:200k-l:2,000,000 


Assessment area 


1:2,000,000 


Assessment area 


1:100k to 1:250,000 


Assessment area 


1:100,000 


Assessment area 


1:24,000 


Assessment area 


1:24,000 


Assessment area 


1:100,000 






Table 1 . Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

(ICBEMP) Geographic Information System (GIS) Data, (continued) 



Theme Name 



Extent 



Scale/Resolution 



Pollutant Sources-Water (TRI) 
Priority Watersheds 
PACF1SH/BULLTROUT/EIS 
River Reach Banks and Water Bodies 
River Reach Files Modified for ICBEMP 
Rivers- 1: 1,000,000 
Rivers-1:2,000,000 

Stream Reaches with Habitat Survey Data 
Streams at 250k from NMFS 
Sub-basins/Watersheds/Subwatersheds 

(6th Field HUCs) 
USGS Sub-basins (4th Field HUCs) 
Valley Bottom Settings-Subsamples 
Water Quality Impairment-Lakes 
Water Quality Impairment-Streams 



Bedrock Background Base Metal Content 
Bedrock Fe/Al/Mg Content 
Bedrock Phosphate Content 
Bedrock Potassium Content 
Cascade Volcano Hazards-lcm/yr 
Ash Probability 

Cascade Volcano Hazards- 10 cm/yr 
Ash Probability 
Cascade Volcano Hazards- 1 m/yr 

Ash Probability 
Cascade Volcano Hazards-Proximal Hazards 
Horizontal Earthquake Accel. Probability 
Low-Temperature Geothermal Sites 
Major Li thology 

Mineral Dep Perm /Fav Areas (MPFA) 
Mineral Deposit Perm/Fav Areas for 

Phosphate 
Mineral Deposits 

Mineral Development Interest Area (MDIA) 
Mineral Industry Locator System 
Mineral Production Facilities 
Mining Claim Density 
Mining Related Hazard Potential 
NURE Stream Sediment Geochemistry: 

Parti 
NURE Stream Sediment Geochemistry: 

Part 2 
NURE Stream Sediment Geochemistry: 

Part 3 
Potential Bat Habitat 
Relative Bedrock Calcium Content 
Sand and Gravel Permissive Tracts 



.5 Km Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 
90 Meter Digital Terrain Model (DTM) 
Bailey Ecoregions 



Assessment area 
ID/OR/WA 


1:24,000 
1:500,000 


Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area & west OR/WA 

Assessment area 

ID/MT/OR/WA 

Landscape Characterization Area 


1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 


100,000 

100,000 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

100,000 

250,000 

100,000 


Assessment area 
Subsamples 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 


1 
1 

1 
1 


250,000 
100,000 
100,000 
100,000 


MINERALS/GEOLOGY GROUP 

Landscape Characterization Area 
Landscape Characterization Area 
Landscape Characterization Area 
Landscape Characterization Area 
Assessment area except WY/UT 


200 meters 
200 meters 
200 meters 
200 meters 
1:2,000,000 


Assessment area except WY/UT 


1:2,000,000 


Assessment area except WY/UT 


1:2,000,000 


Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area states except WY 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 


2 kilometers 
5 kilometers 
1:24,000 
200 meters 
1 kilometer 
200 meters 


Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 
ID/MT/NV/OR/UT/WA/WY 
Assessment area 
ID/MT 


1:24k to 1:100,000 

1:500,000 

1:24k to 1:100,000 

1:24k to 1:100,000 

1:500,000 

1:24k to 1:100,000 

200 meters 


ID/MT/OR 


200 meters 


OR/WA 


200 meters 


Landscape Characterization Area 
Landscape Characterization Area 
Landscape Characterization Area 


200 meters 
200 meters 
200 meters 


PHYSIOGRAPHIC GROUP 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 

USA 


500 meters 
90 meters 
1:3,500,000 



Biophysical Environment-Regional 
Ecological Reporting Units (Assessment) 
Ecological Reporting Units (EIS) 
Ecological Reporting Units by 

Subwatershed (Assessment) 
Ecological Reporting Units by 

Subwatershed (EIS) 

Franklin /Dymess Physiographic Provinces 
Landscape Characterization Boundary 
Omernik Ecoregions 
Photo Interpretation Subsample Areas 
Soil Susceptibility to Disturbance Stress 
Subsample Boundaries 
Subsections 



Landscape Characterization Area 1 kilometer 

Assessment area 1:100,000 

Assessment area 1:100,000 

Landscape Characterization Area 1:100,000 

Landscape Characterization Area 1:100,000 

OR/WA 1:4,000,000 

Landscape Characterization Area 1:500,000 

Assessment area 1:2,500,000 

Landscape Characterization Area 1:24,000 

CA/ID/MT/NV/OR/UT/WA/WY 1:250,000 

Assessment area 1:100,000 

Landscape Characterization Area 1:500,000 



BLM Administrative Unit Boundaries 

BLM Planning Units 

County Boundaries-1 : 1 00,000 

Counties-Economic Attributes (Assess) 

Counties-EconomicAttributes (EIS Ver.) 

Eastside and Upper Columbia EIS Boundary 

Eastside EIS Boundary 

Indian Reservations 

Management Area Categories 

Management Regions/Classes (EIS) 

National Forest Boundaries 

Natural Areas 

Ownership 

Ownership 

Provincial Level Planning Bdys-FEMAT 

Range (Grazing) Allotments 

RARE II and WSA (USFS/BLM unroaded) 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

State Boundaries 

State Parks 

Tribal Areas of Interest 

Tribal Ceded Land 

Tribal Court of Claims Boundaries 

Upper Columbia EIS Boundary 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 



POLITICAL GROUP 

Assessment area 

ID /OR/WA 

CA/ID/MT/NV/OR/UT/WA/WY 

Socio-Economic Assessment Area 

Socio-Economic Assessment Area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

ID/MT/NV/OR/UT/WA/WY 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 

Assessment area 

CA/ID/NV/OR/UT/WA/WY 

MT 

CA/ OR/WA 

ID/MT/NV/OR/UT/WA/WY 

Assessment area 

ID/MT/NV/OR/UT/WA/WY 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Assessment area 

Landscape Characterization Area 



1:500,000 

1:1,000,000 

1:100,000 

county 

county 

1:100,000 

1:100,000 

1:2,000,000 

1:24k to 1:1,000,000 

1 kilometer 

1:100,000 

1:24k to 1:500,000 

1:100,000 

1:126,720 

1:250,000 

1:24k to 1:126,720 

1:500,000 

1:24k to 1:250,000 

1:100,000 

1:2,000,000 

1:1,000,000 

1:1,000,000 

1:4,000,000 

1:100,000 

1:2,000,000 



Wilderness 
Wilderness Study Areas 



Landscape Characterization Area 
Assessment area 



1:24k to 1:2,000,000 
1:24k to 1:126,720 



Centers of Biodiversity-Animals 
Centers of Biodiversity-Plants 
Centers of Endemism/Rarity-Animals 
Centers of Endemism/Rarity-Plants 
Hot Spots of Biodiversity 
Hot Spots of Endemism/ Rarity 
Species Ranges-Amphibian Species 



SPECIES GROUP 

Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 



1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 



Species Ranges-Bird Species 
Species Ranges-Carnivores 
Species Ranges-Invertebrate Species 
Species Ranges-Mammal Species 
Species Ranges-Reptile Species 



Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 
Assessment area 



1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 
1:2,000,000 






Table 1 . Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

(ICBEMP) Geographic Information System (GIS) Data, (continued) 



Theme Name 



Extent 



Scale/Resolution 



TERRESTRIAL GROUP 



Natural Heritage Data (Sens) 



Current. Midscale Vegetation Subsamples 

Historic Midscale Vegetation Subsamples 

Kuchler's Potential Natural Vegetation 

Kuchler's Potential Natural Veg-Point 

Lifeform 

Vegetation-Historic OR /WA 1930's 

ATTRIBUTE FILES 1 

Alternative 5 Secondary Emphasis Areas 
Alternative Composite Ecological Trends 
Alternative Emphasis Areas 
Bailey's Ecoregion Provinces by 

Subwatershed 
Bailey's Ecoregion Sections by 

Subwatershed 
Biophysical Classification for 

Subwatersheds 
Biophysical Setting-Regional by 

Subwatershed 
Boundary and Elevation Information for 

Subwatersheds 
CRBSUM Current Vegetation by 

Subwatershed (Assessment) 
CRBSUM Historic Potential Vegetation 

by Subwatershed (Assessment) 
CRBSUM Historic Vegetation by 

Subwatershed (Assessment) 
Ecoregion Subsections by Subwatershed 
Forest/Range Clusters and Integrity 
Road Density (Predicted) by Subwatershed 
Slope by Subwatershed 
Valley Bottom Summary by Subwatershed 
Watershed Characterization by 

Subwatershed 
Weather-1989, by Subwatershed 



Landscape Characterization Area 


point data 


VEGETATION GROUP 




Subsamples 


1:12,000 to 1:31,680 


Subsamples 


1:12,000 to 1:31,680 


Assessment area 


1:3,168,000 


Assessment area 


1:3,168,000 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


OR/WA 


1:500,000 


KED TO SUB-BASINS OR SUBWATERSHEDS 


Assessment area 


sub-basin 


Assessment area 


sub-basin 


Assessment area 


sub-basin 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Assessment area 


sub-basin 


Landscape Characterization Area 


subwatershed 


Landscape Characterization Area 


1 kilometer 


Subsamples 


subwatershed 


Landscape Characterization Area 


subwatershed 


Landscape Characterization Area 


subwatershed 



Theme Name Codes 

(Sens): Sensitive data. Not releasable. 

Extents 

Assessment area: 'CRBA'. Assessment area of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. 

same area referred to as Project Area in this DEIS. The area is comprised of Eastern OR and WA, most of ID. 

and parts of MT. UT, NV and WY. 

Landscape Characterization Area: larger than the CRBA: includes more of ID, MT. UT. NV, WY and some of CA. 

Socio-Economic Assessment Area: also larger than the CRBA: follows county lines. 



List current as of 4/15/96 



Table 2, Databases and models obtained or created for ICBEMP (as of March 1, 1996). 

[The following table provides summary information on databases and models created or obtained for support of the ICBEMP Assessment. 
Some of the databases listed below may actually be spreadsheets.] 



Database/Model Name 



Models 



Description 



Responsible Team Software 



Platform GIS Data Layer Tied to Database 



Vegetation Dynamics 
Development Tool (VDDT) 



CRB Successional Model 
(CRBSUM) 



Aquatic Databases 

Columbia River Basin 
Reach Inventory Database 
(CRBRID) 

Fisheries Databases 

Status of "key" Salmonids 

Fish Assemblages 
Historic Fish Distribution 



PC based disturbance and successional Dandscape 

pathway model that displays vegetative 

outputs (cover type and structural stage) 

for management options. Alternative and 

Scenario disturbances and pathways will 

be packaged and available. 

GIS model for predicting vegetation Dandscape 

management futures based on successional 

and disturbance pathways from the VDDT 

model. Model needs enhancements in order 

to be made user friendly, run with 

contagion and at the mid-scale level. 



Stream inventory information linked Aquatic 

to 17,000 km of river reaches within 
the CRB 



Classification of salmonid status within Aquatic 

the 6th-field hydrologic units 

Species assemblages of native and Aquatic 

introduced fish taxa 

Presumed historic distributions of Aquatic 

sensitive, threatened, endangered, or 
special concern fish taxa 



Windows 



PC 



None 



Unix, Doki 

and 

Arc/Info 



Paradox 



dBase 



dBase 



dBase 



Unix 



PC 



PC 



PC 



PC 



Vegetation outputs from 
model (cover type and structure) 



1 00K streams 



6th-field hydrologic units 
(subwatersheds) 

5th-field hydrologic units 
(watersheds) 

4th-field hydrologic units 
(sub-basins) 



Table 2, Databases and models obtained or created for ICBEMP (as of March 1, 1996). (continued) 



The following table provides summary information on databases and models created or obtained for support of the ICBEMP Assessment. 
Some of the databases listed below may actually be spreadsheets.] 



Database/Model Name 



Description 



Responsible Team Software 



Platform GIS Data Layer Tied to Database 



Terrestrial Databases 

Biodiversity 



Species Environment 
Relations (SER) 
Model Database 



Documentation of the species comprising Terrestrial 
the centers of endemism and biodiversity 
that were delineated by the Scientific Panels 

Ecological function, environmental Terrestrial 

correlates and other information 
from Scientific Panels for candidate, 
threatened, endangered and sensitive 
plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate species 



Paradox 



Paradox 



PC 



PC 



centers of endemism and rarity, 
centers of biodiversity 



species ranges 

(for subset of species) 



Other 



Demographic Databases 
Wessex Corp. "Profiler" 
and "Tiger 92" 

PRIZM Lifestyle Database 



Columbia River Basin 
Landscape Assessment 
Database (CRBLAD) 



Demographic information and statistics Social 

from the 1990 U.S. census (purchased) 



Data describing the proportions of Social 

households within each census tract (purchased) 

belonging to 62 lifestyle clusters 

Vegetative information and indicator Spatial 

variable classifications of 6th hydrologic 

unit codes for the historic, current and 

Scientific Assessment Scenarios. 

Created for analytical purposes only. 

Pertinent informationsummarized 

in Executive Summary database for 

historic and current conditions. 



dBase 



dBase 



ACCESS 



PC 



PC 



PC 



census tracts and blockgroups 



census tracts and blockgroup 



6th-fleld hydrologic units 
(subwatersheds) 



Columbia River Basin 
Landscape EIS Database 
(CRBLED) 



Vegetative information and indicator 
variable classifications of 4th~field 
hydrologic unit codes for the historic, 
current and modeled EIS alternatives. 



Spatial 



ACCESS PC 



4thTield hydrologic units 
(sub-basins) 






Created for analytical purposes only. 
Pertinent information summarized 
in Alternative Summary files. 



:::: , ! : : : 



Executive Summary 



Vegetative information and indicator 
variableclassifications of 6th hydrologic 
unit codes for the historic and 
current situation. 



Spatial 
and dBase 



ArcView PC/Unix 6th-field hydrologic units 

(subwatersheds) 



Alternative Summary 



■; : : i: ■:: 



Invaders 



Watershed Characterization 
Database (H4/H6Interp) 



Vegetative information and indicator 
variable classifications of 4th-field 
hydrologic units for various alternatives. 
Also includes integrity ratings for aquatic, 
hydrologic, forest, and range. 

Exotic plant species location by county 



Hydrologic function data and 
classification of 4th/6th hydrologic 
unit codes subwatersheds 



Spatial 



ArcView PC/Unix 4th-field hydrologic unit code 

and dBase (sub-basins) 



Landscape/ 
Terrestrial 

Landscape 



Paradox PC 



Paradox PC 



vegetation cover type and 
structures 

4th- / 6th-field hydrologic units 
(sub-basins and subwatersheds) 



■ Research, Development 
l| and Application 
jj (RDandA) Database 



Research needs, data gaps and 
assumptions for staff areas 



Landscape 



Paradox PC 



none 



Timber Mill Sites 
Database 



Information about products and 
production of timber mills 



Economics 



Paradox 



PC 



towns 



Tracker 



Administrative record tracking system 



Administration 



Paradox 



PC 






Appendix 4-2 

Rationale for 

Viability 

Compliance 

(Comparable to UCRB Appendix K) 




This Appendix contains 
the following items: 

• Introduction 

» Management for Viable 
Populations 

• Relationship Between 

SIT Evaluation 
Outcomes and 
Viability Determinations 

• Conclusions 



* 



:■:■:■:,■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:,,::■:■■:■■■■■:■ 






Introduction 



The management of fish and wildlife resources involves the interrelationship of habitat 
management and population management. While federal land management agencies have control 
of occupancy and use of the federal lands they administer, they have, through memoranda of 
understanding (MOUs) with state fish and wildlife agencies, made a distinction between habitat 
management and population management. These MOUs acknowledge that federal land 
management agencies have the role of habitat management and state fish and wildlife agencies 
have the role of population management. An exception would be for species that are federally 
listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended; the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service or the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service have a consulting and oversight role for populations 
of these species and their habitats. In some cases federal management actions governing use and 
occupancy may affect populations directly rather than through habitat management. These 
circumstances include closure orders under 36 CFR 261 and decisions that may affect public 
access made through the land management planning and travel planning processes. Such 
decisions are being made at finer scales rather than through these broad-scale EISs. 

Memoranda of understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the 
various state agencies can be found in Forest Service Manual 2610. Memoranda of understanding 
between the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management and state agencies can be 
found in the central files of each BLM state office. 

Management for Viable Populations 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) required the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate 
regulations to guide Forest Service planning. One of the statutory requirements is "specifying 
guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals of the Program which 
provides for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of 
the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives." 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B). In 
accord with this diversity provision, the Secretary promulgated a regulation that states the following: 

Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing 
native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning 
purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated 
numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence 
is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will 
be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of 
reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those 
individuals can interact with others in the planning area. 36 CFR 219.19. 

Because of the enormous complexity and dynamic nature of the ecosystems managed under 
NFMA, there is no specific or precise standard or technique for satisfying these requirements, as 
recognized by the scientific community and many courts. The Committee of Scientists that 
provided scientific advice to the Forest Service on the crafting of NFMA regulations stated "it is 
impossible to write specific regulations to 'provide for' diversity" and "there remains a great deal of 
room for honest debate on the translation of policy into management planning requirements and 
into management programs" (44 Fed. Reg. 26,600-01 & 26,608). In fact the court in Seattle 
Audubon Society v. Mosely (W.D. Wash. 1992) stated that the Forest Service must use common 
sense and apply its fish and wildlife expertise in implementing these requirements. The court also 
stated that "The Forest Service argues that it should not be required to conduct viability analysis 
as to every species. There is no such requirement. As in any administrative field, common sense 
and agency expertise must be applied." 



..'J 



This regulation describes as a goal of National Forest System management the maintenance of viable 
populations. The means by which the agency is to accomplish that goal is management of habitat. 



For these EISs a viable population has the estimated numbers and distribution of 
reproductive individuals (both current and projected) to provide for a self-sustaining 
population with a sufficiently high likelihood of continued existence at a high enough level 
that listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act does not become warranted. A 
"listed species" is considered to be viable when it is removed from the Endangered Species list 



The species viability regulation is applicable only to lands managed by the Forest Service. 
However, management of habitat on BLM-administered land to achieve the same outcomes would 
not be inconsistent with statutory mandates governing management of BLM-administered lands, 
particularly the authorities under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the directives 
found in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and the Endangered Species Act. In addition, there 
is a separate duty under NEPA to disclose foreseeable environmental impacts, including 
cumulative effects of other actions, and these may include effects on populations. Consistency 
with Forest Service management under the National Forest Management Act, including the viability 
regulation, would also serve the important BLM policy goal of protecting long-term health and 
sustainability of all lands it administers within the project area. Thus the BLM has chosen to apply 
the same standard to its planning process for this interagency ecosystem management effort. 

Relationship between SIT Evaluation 
Outcomes and Viability 
Determinations 

The dynamic relationship between habitat conditions and species persistence is not yet well 
enough known for most species, to allow the construction of models capable of reliable population 
trends. The data on climatic conditions, geologic events, and other non habitat factors is so 
limited in duration and the understanding of the complex relationships involved so limited, that a 
reliable model of the impacts of such factors is not now available. Therefore, for most species a 
decision was made to rely primarily on the judgements of scientific experts on the likely habitat 
and population outcomes of the various alternatives over time. However, a process described 
below was used to structure the opinions of these scientific experts so that there is at least a 
common logical approach to their determinations of outcomes. This methodology is not the only 
approach which could have been used in making determinations of "viability", but it has been 
accepted as a reasonable method, and at this time, may be the best method available. See Seattle 
Audubon Society v. Lyons, 871 F.Supp. 1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994); aff'd Seattle Audubon Society v. 
Mosely,_ F.3d_ (9th Cir. 1996) (April 10, 1996; No. 95-35052, et seq.). 

The opinions of the scientific panels, which were assembled by the Science Integration Team 
during the evaluation of alternatives, are considered projections of outcomes to be weighed by the 
decision-makers in determining whether a particular alternative would provide for viable 
populations and consequently the diversity in biological resources. The decision-makers may 
weigh other facts in making this determination, including the basis of the opinions by the scientific 
panelists, and the degree of consensusamong the panel members. Where there is a divergence of 
opinions among the scientists, the decision-makers may choose to rely on the opinions of certain 
scientists, on the panels over others rather than the median level of opinion. The record on which 
this environmental impact statement is based discloses the basis for the scientific panel ratings 
and is available to the public and the decision-makers in making an assessment of the weight 



which should be given to that scientific opinion. The primary usefulness of the outcomes is to 
assist the agencies in identifying species of concern and those species which may benefit or suffer 
the most from the choices to be made among the alternatives. 

Conclusions 

Terrestrial Species 

♦ Habitat outcomes is the method used to address the viability requirements of NFMA 
planning regulation 36 CFR 219. 19. This method has been determined to be reasonable for 
addressing NFMA viability requirements for broad-scale, programmatic planning, and refers 
only to federal lands. 

♦ Cumulative effects analysis, under the requirements of NEPA, was used to make inferences about 
populations and population persistence and habitat on non-federal and federal lands. This method 
was referred to as "Population Outcomes." See Tables 1 through 16. 

Tables 1 through 16 display detailed results of the terrestrial species assessment. For each 
group of species (vascular plants; amphibians and reptiles; waterbirds and shorebirds; raptors 
and gamebirds; woodpeckers, nuthatches and swifts; cuckoos, hummingbirds and passerines; 
bats and small mammals; and carnivores and ungulates), the data are presented in two ways. 

The first table for each species group presents mean likelihood scores for each of the five 
outcomes for historical and current conditions and the seven alternatives. In this table, 
outcomes are presented first as habitat outcomes for federal lands only and then as population 
outcomes expressing cumulative effects across all ownerships. 

The second table for each species group displays the weighted mean outcomes that were 
derived from the mean likelihood scores. Data from these tables were used to develop figures 
in Chapter 4. 



Aquatic Species 



♦ Qualitative and quantitative changes in population distribution and status of key 
salmonids and changes in habitat for narrowly distributed, endemic, or sensitive fish 
species were used to address the viability requirements of NFMA planning regulation 36 
CFR 219.19. These methods are to be reasonable for addressing NFMA viability 
requirements for broad-scale programmatic planning. 

♦ Cumulative effects analysis, under the NEPA requirements, was used to make 
inferences about change in populations, population persistence, and habitat on non- 
federal and federal lands. For aquatic and terrestrial viability determinations see Chapter 4. 



Table 1. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for selected species of 
vascular plants for the Eastside Planning Area. 







Period 






Alternative 3 






Species Name Area 1 


Outcome 2 


H 


c 


Al 


A2 


A3 


A4 


A5 


A6 


A7 


Astragalus mulfordiae BLM/FS 


1 
2 
3 
4 

5 





80 

20 







60 

40 







30 
60 

10 





50 
40 

10 






50 

40 

10 






65 

25 

10 





50 
40 

10 






65 

25 

10 






50 

40 

10 


CumEff 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 





80 

20 








70 

20 

10 





30 
60 
10 






50 

40 

10 





50 
40 
10 





60 
30 
10 





40 
40 
20 





60 
30 
10 





50 
40 
10 


Astragalus solitarius BLM/FS 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 





80 

20 







70 

30 








70 

30 







70 

30 








70 

30 







80 

20 








70 

30 








80 

20 








70 

30 




CumEff 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 





80 

20 








70 

30 







70 
30 








70 

30 








70 

30 







80 

20 







70 

30 







80 

20 








70 

30 



Botrychium ascendens BLM/FS 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 






50 

50 







50 

50 







80 

20 







80 

20 








70 

30 








70 

30 








70 

30 







70 
30 








so 

20 



Botrychium crenulatum BLM/FS 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 





50 

50 








50 

50 






30 
30 
40 





60 
30 

10 





60 
30 
10 






40 

40 

20 





20 
40 
40 






40 

40 

20 






60 

30 

10 


CumEff 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 





50 

50 







50 

50 







30 

30 

40 






60 

30 

10 






60 

30 

10 





40 
40 
20 





20 
40 
40 





40 
40 
20 






60 

30 

10 


Botrychium paradoxum BLM/FS 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 





50 

50 







50 

50 







40 

60 








40 

60 







40 

60 








40 

60 







40 

60 








40 

60 








40 

50 



Calochortus longebarbatusBLM/FS 
var. longebarbatus 


1 
2 
3 

4 
5 






so 

20 






70 

30 







55 

45 







65 

35 







65 
35 








60 

40 







55 

45 







60 

40 








65 

35 




CumEff 


1 
2 

80 
4 
5 






65 

20 







50 

35 








60 

50 







60 

40 








55 

40 








50 

45 







55 

50 







60 

45 







40 



Calochortus longebarbatusBLM /FS 
var. peckii 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 






100 










80 

20 







80 

20 








90 

10 








90 

10 








80 

20 







70 

30 








80 

20 






90 

10 




Table 1. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for selected species of 
vascular plants for the Eastside Planning Area (continued). 



Species Name 



Area 1 



Outcome 2 



Period 
H C 



Al 



A2 



Alternative 3 
A3 A4 A5 



A6 



A7 



CumEff 



Calochortus nitidus BLM/FS 



CumEff 



CastUleja chlorotica BLM/FS 



CumEff 



CoU.om.ia mazama 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



Cypripediiunfasciculatum BLM/FS 



CumEff 



Hackelia cronquistii BLM/FS 



CumEff 



1 





























2 





























3 


100 


75 


80 


90 


90 


80 


70 


80 


90 


4 





25 


20 


10 


10 


20 


30 


20 


10 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


60 


30 


30 


30 


50 


50 


50 


50 


20 


4 


40 


70 


70 


70 


50 


50 


50 


50 


80 


5 





























1 





























2 




























3 


60 


25 


25 


25 


45 


45 


45 


45 


20 


4 


40 


75 


75 


75 


55 


55 


55 


55 


80 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


90 


80 


90 


90 


90 


90 


90 


90 


70 


4 


10 


20 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


30 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


90 


80 


90 


90 


90 


90 


90 


90 


65 


4 


10 


20 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


35 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


90 


90 


90 


90 


80 


90 


80 


90 


9 


4 


10 


10 


10 


10 


20 


10 


20 


10 


10 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


90 


90 


90 


90 


80 


90 


80 


90 


90 


4 


10 


10 


10 


10 


20 


10 


20 


10 


10 


5 





























1 





























2 


70 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 





3 


30 


60 


60 


60 


80 


80 


80 


80 


70 


4 





30 


30 


30 


10 


10 


10 


10 


30 


5 





























1 





























2 


70 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


3 


30 


60 


60 


60 


70 


70 


70 


70 


70 


4 





25 


25 


25 


15 


15 


15 


15 


15 


5 





5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


1 





























2 





























3 


50 


40 


30 


35 


30 


50 


35 


45 


45 


4 


50 


60 


60 


60 


65 


45 


60 


45 


45 


5 








10 


5 


5 


5 


5 


10 


10 


1 





























2 





























3 


50 


30 


30 


30 


30 


40 


30 


35 


40 


4 


50 


70 


70 


70 


70 


60 


70 


65 


60 


5 




mmr 










:.'.:.■..■- .i - ■: ■:'.■.■"■■:.■.■.■ 


















Species Name 



Area 1 



Period 
Outcome 2 H C 



Al 



A2 



Alternative 3 
A3 A4 A5 



A6 



A7 



Howellia aquatilis 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



Lomatiumsuksdorjii 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



Mimulus pygmaeus 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



Mimulus washingtonensis BLM/FS 
var. washingtonensis 



CumEff 



Mirdbilismacfarlanei BLM/FS 



CumEff 



Penstemonglaucinus BLM/FS 



1 





























2 





























3 





























4 


80 


75 


75 


75 


75 


75 


75 


75 


75 


5 


20 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


25 


1 





























2 





























3 


60 


60 


60 


60 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


4 


40 


20 


20 


20 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


5 





20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


1 





























2 





























3 





























4 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


5 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


1 





























2 





























3 


60 


50 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


4 


40 


50 


60 


60 


60 


60 


60 


60 


60 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


90 


80 


80 


85 


80 


85 


80 


85 


80 


4 


10 


20 


20 


15 


20 


15 


20 


15 


20 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


90 


80 


80 


85 


80 


85 


80 


85 


80 


4 


10 


20 


20 


15 


20 


15 


20 


15 


20 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


30 


20 


20 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


20 


4 


70 


80 


80 


70 


70 


70 


70 


70 


80 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


30 


20 


20 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


20 


4 


70 


80 


80 


70 


70 


70 


70 


70 


80 


5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


90 


5 


5 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


20 


4 


10 


90 


90 


80 


80 


80 


80 


80 


70 


5 





5 


5 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


1 





























2 





























3 


90 





10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


4 


10 


50 


50 


60 


60 


60 


60 


60 


70 


5 





50 


40 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


20 


■1 





























2 





























3 


40 


70 


80 


80 


80 


80 


80 


,80 


75 


4 


60 


30 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


25 


5 






























.^r:::}: 



■■■:...:.....■■.■..■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 





























Table 1. Mean likelihood 


scores 


of viability outcomes for selected species 


of 


vascular plants for the Eastside Planning Area. 














Period 






Alternative 3 






Species Name Area 1 


Outcome 


2 H 


C 


Al 


A2 


A3 


A4 


A5 


AS 


A7 


CumEff 


1 































2 































3 


40 


70 


80 


80 


80 


80 


80 


80 


75 




4 


60 


30 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


20 


25 




5 





























Polemonium pectination BLM/FS 


1 
2 








































3 































4 


60 


50 


50 


50 


55 


55 


55 


55 


50 




5 


40 


50 


50 


50 


45 


45 


45 


45 


50 


CumEff 


1 































2 


80 




























3 


20 




























4 





10 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 




5 





90 


95 


95 


95 


95 


95 


95 


95 


Silene spaldingii BLM/FS 


1 
2 








































3 














10 


10 


10 


10 







4 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 




5 


50 


50 


50 


50 


40 


40 


40 


40 


50 


CumEff 


1 































2 


80 




























3 


20 




























4 





20 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 


10 




5 





80 


90 


90 


90 


90 


90 


90 


90 


Stephar&meriamalheurensis BLM/FS 


1 
2 









































3 































4 































5 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


Trijoliumthompsonii BLM/FS 


1 
2 








































3 


50 


50 


40 


40 


45 


50 


45 


50 


45 




4 


50 


50 


60 


60 


55 


50 


55 


50 


55 


CumEff 


1 































2 































3 


50 


50 


45 


45 


50 


55 


50 


55 


50 




4 


50 


50 


55 


55 


50 


45 


50 


45 


50 




5 





























Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100 points. High 


scores indicate high likelihood 




of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual likelihood scores of 


aanelists. 










1 Area: BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washing 


ton planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; 




CumEff - all lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington 


planning area 














2 Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 


3 - patchy; 


4 - isolated: 5 


- scarce 


See Chapter 


4 for 


complete 




explanation. 






















3 Period / Alternative: H - historical 


ore-European settlement 


period; C - current; Al 


- Alternative 


1; A2 - 




Alternative 2; etc. 

■ ■ ■'.'...'.'.'.'.'■' ■ 














lilil 


" .-:::::::::Et:; : : 





Table 2. Mean Viability Outcomes for Habitat and Populations of Vascular 
Plants for the Eastside Planning Area. 


Species Name 


Area 1 


Period 
H C 


Al 


A2 


Alternative 3 
A3 A4 


A5 


A6 


A7 


Astragalus mulfordiae 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.2 
3.2 


3.4 
3.4 


3.8 
3.8 


3.6 
3.6 


3.6 
3.6 


3.5 
3.5 


3.6 

3.8 


3.5 
3.5 


3.6 
3.6 


Astragalus solitarius 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.2 
3.2 


3.3 
3.3 


3.3 
3.3 


3.3 
3.3 


3.3 
3.3 


3.2 
3.2 


3.3 
3.3 


3.2 
3.2 


3.3 
3.3 


Botrychium ascendens 


BLM/FS 


3.5 


3.5 


3.2 


3.2 


3.3 


3.3 


3.3 


3.3 


3.2 


Botrychium crenulatum 


BLM/FS 
umEff 


3.5 
3.5 


3.5 
3.5 


4.1 3 
4.1 3 


3.5 
3.5 


3.5 
3.5 


3.8 
3.8 


4.2 3 
4.2 3 


3.8 
3.8 


3.5 
3.5 


Botrychiumparadoxum 


BLM/FS 


3.5 


3.5 


3.6 


3.6 


3.6 


3.6 


3.6 


3.6 


3.6 


Calochortus longebarbatus 
var. longebarbatus 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.2 
3.2 


3.3 

3.4 


3.5 
3.5 


3.4 
3.4 


3.4 
3.4 


3.4 
3.5 


3.5 

3.5 


3.4 
3.5 


3.4 
3.4 


Calochortus longebarbatus 
var. peckii 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.0 
3.0 


3.2 
3.3 


3.2 
3.2 


3.1 
3.1 


3.1 
3.1 


3.2 
3.2 


3.3 
3.3 


3.2 
3.2 


3.1 
3.1 


Calochortus nitidus 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.4 
3.4 


3.7 
3.8 


3.7 
3.8 


3.7 
3.8 


3.5 
3.6 


3.5 
3.6 


3.5 
3.6 


3.5 
3.6 


3.8 
3.8 


Castilleja chlorotica 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.1 
3.1 


3.2 
3.2 


3.1 
3.1 


3.1 
3.1 


3.1 

3.1 


3.1 
3.1 


3.1 
3.1 


3.1 
3.1 


3.3 
3.4 


Collomia mazama 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.1 
3.1 


3.1 
3.1 


3.1 
3.1 


3.1 
3.1 


3.2 
3.2 


3.1 
3.1 


3.2 

3.2 


3.1 
3.1 


3.1 
3.1 


Cypripediumfasciculatum 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


2.3 
2.3 


3.2 
3.3 


3.2 
3.3 


3.2 
3.3 


3.0 
3.2 


3.0 
3.2 


3.0 
3.2 


3.0 
3.2 


3.3 
3.2 


Hackelia cronquistii 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.5 
3.5 


3.6 
3.7 


3.8 
3.7 


3.7 
3.7 


3.8 
3.7 


3.6 
3.6 


3.7 
3.7 


3.7 
3.7 


3.7 
3.6 


Howellia aquatilis 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


4.2 

3.4 


4.3 
3.6 


4.3 
3.6 


4.3 
3.6 


4.3 
3.7 


4.3 
3.7 


4.3 
3.7 


4.3 
3.7 


4.3 
3.7 


Lomatiwrisuksdorfu 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


4.5 
3.4 


4.5 
3.5 


4.5 
3.6 


4.5 
3.6 


4.5 
3.6 


4.5 
3.6 


4.5 
3.6 


4.5 
3.6 


4.5 
3.6 


Mimulus pygmaeus 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.1 
3.1 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


Mimulus washingtonensis 
var. washingtonensis 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.7 
3.7 


3.8 
3.8 


3.8 
3.8 


3.7 
3.7 


3.7 
3.7 


3.7 
3.7 


3.7 
3.7 


3.7 
3.7 


3.8 
3.8 


Mirabilis macfarlanei 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.1 
3.1 


4.0 
4.5 


4.0 
4.3 


4.0 
4.2 


4.0 
4.2 


4.0 
4.2 


4.0 
4.2 


4.0 
4.2 


3.9 
4.1 


Penstemonglaucinus 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.6 
3.6 


3.3 
3.3 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.2 

3.2 


3.2 
3.2 


3.3 
3.3 


Polemonium pectinatum 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


4.4 
2.2 


4.5 
4.9 


4.5 
5.0 


4.5 
5.0 


4.5 
5.0 


4.5 
5.0 


4.5 
5.0 


4.5 
5.0 


4.5 
5.0 


Silene spaldingii 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


4.5 
2.2 


4.5 
4.8 


4.5 
4.9 


4.5 
4.9 


4.3 
4.9 


4.3 
4.9 


4.3 
4.9 


4.3 
4.9 


4.5 
4.9 



Stephanomeria malheurensis BLM/FS 



5.0 5.0 



5.0 5.0 



5.0 



5.0 5.0 



5.0 



5.0 



Table 2. Mean Viability Outcomes for Habitat and Populations of Vascular 
Plants for the Eastside Planning Area (continued) 



Species Name 



Area 1 



Period 
H C 



Al 



Alternative 3 

A2 A3 A4 A5 



A6 



A7 



Trifolium thompsonii 



BLM/FS 
CumEff 



3.5 3.5 
3.5 3.5 



3.6 
3.6 



3.6 
3.6 



3.6 
3.5 



3.5 
3.5 



3.6 3.5 
3.5 3.5 



3.6 
3.5 



Mean outcomes were calculated as the weighted mean of average likelihood scores in each outcome. 

1 Area: BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area. BLM and Forest Service lands only; 
CumEff - all lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area; 

2 Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current: Al - Alternative 1 ; A2 - 
alternative 2; etc. 

3 Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.50 units. Outcomes 
reported in table were rounded to 0. 1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.0 1 units. Hence, departure 
calculated from the table may be misleading. 





Table 3. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for amphibians and 






reptiles for the Eastside Planning 


Area. 
























Period 






Alternative 4 






Group 1 


Species Name 


Area 2 


Outcome 3 


H 


c 


Al 


A2 


A3 


A4 


A5 


A6 


A7 


AMP 


Spotted frog 


BLM/FS 


1 


20 




























species B 




2 


30 




























(Columbian) 




3 


35 


60 


30 


65 


60 


65 


33 


65 


16 








4 


10 


30 


50 


25 


30 


25 


50 


25 


2U 








5 


5 


10 


20 


10 


10 


10 


18 


10 


8 






CumEff 


1 


20 
































2 


30 
































3 


35 


60 


25 


58 


53 


58 


28 


58 


65 








4 


10 


30 


55 


30 


35 


30 


55 


30 


25 








5 


5 


10 


20 


13 


13 


13 


18 


13 


10 


AMP 


Northern 


BLM/FS 5 


1 































leopard frog 




2 


17 
































3 


50 


17 





10 





15 





15 


20 








4 


33 


20 


27 


30 


40 


30 


35 


30 


30 








5 





63 


73 


60 


60 


55 


65 


55 


50 






CumEff 


1 



































2 


17 































3 


50 


17 





























4 


33 


20 


3 


5 


5 


8 


3 


8 


15 








5 





63 


97 


95 


95 


92 


97 


92 


85 


AMP 


Spotted frog 


BLM/FS 5 


1 































species A 




2 


60 








5 





10 





15 


20 




(Oregon) 




3 


30 


50 


20 


45 


50 


50 


25 


50 


bb 








4 


10 


40 


50 


40 


40 


35 


50 


30 


20 








5 





10 


30 


10 


10 


5 


25 


5 


5 






CumEff 


1 



































2 


60 
































3 


30 


50 


20 


45 


45 


45 


25 


45 


50 








4 


10 


40 


50 


40 


40 


40 


50 


40 


40 








5 





10 


30 


15 


15 


15 


25 


15 


10 



Group 1 Species Name Area 2 



Outcome 3 



Period 
H C 



Al 



A2 



Alternative 4 
A3 A4 A5 



A6 A7 



AMP Tailed frog 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



AMP 



Western toad 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



AMP 



Woodhouse's 
toad 



BLM/FS 5 



CumEff 



REP 



Common 
garter snake 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



REP 



Desert horned 
lizard 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



REP 



Longnose 
leopard lizard 



BLM/FS 



1 





























2 


50 


25 





25 


15 


30 





30 


38 


3 


25 


45 


13 


45 


45 


40 


20 


40 


35 


4 


20 


18 


65 


20 


30 


18 


60 


18 


18 


5 


5 


13 


23 


10 


10 


13 


20 


13 


10 


1 





























2 


50 


25 























3 


25 


45 


8 


48 


33 


45 


10 


45 


55 


4 


20 


18 


25 


38 


43 


38 


30 


38 


33 


5 


5 


13 


68 


15 


25 


18 


60 


18 


13 


1 


40 


10 





13 


10 


15 





15 


25 


2 


45 


50 


20 


55 


58 


53 


20 


53 


50 


3 


15 


35 


20 


33 


33 


33 


25 


33 


25 


4 





5 


60 











55 








5 





























1 


40 


























2 


45 


20 


5 


13 


13 


18 


8 


18 


23 


3 


15 


45 


15 


45 


45 


40 


15 


40 


40 


4 





25 


20 


35 


35 


35 


20 


35 


30 


5 





10 


60 


8 


8 


8 


58 


8 


8 


1 





























2 


55 








5 


2 


10 





15 


15 


3 


40 


25 


5 


20 


15 


25 


5 


30 


35 


4 


5 


65 


45 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


45 


5 





10 


50 


25 


33 


15 


45 


5 


5 


1 





























2 


55 


























3 


40 


25 























4 


5 


65 


30 


45 


45 


50 


35 


50 


55 


5 





10 


70 


55 


55 


50 


65 


50 


45 


1 


50 


























2 


50 


50 





50 


50 


50 





50 


50 


3 





50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


4 








50 











50 








5 





























1 


50 


























2 


50 


























3 





50 





50 


50 


50 





50 


50 


4 





50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


5 








50 











50 








1 


50 


45 


40 


45 


45 


45 


40 


45 


50 


2 


50 


55 


60 


55 


55 


55 


60 


55 


50 


3 





























4 





























5 





























1 


50 


45 


40 


45 


45 


45 


40 


45 


50 


2 


50 


55 


60 


55 


55 


55 


60 


55 


50 


3 





























4 





























5 





























1 





























2 





























3 


50 


30 


20 


30 


30 


30 


20 


30 


35 


4 


50 


60 


60 


60 


60 


60 


60 


60 


55 


5 





10 


20 

: : : :':- :■■:■■■:■■■:■■■:■■■■■:■,.■. 
X ■>■ ■-: 


10 


10 


10 


20 


10 


10 




™d* 


AFT EI 


S/Aw* 


mx 4»2 


ZPlGU 


385 



Table 3. Mean likelihood scores of viability 


outcomes for 


amphibians and 




reptiles for the Eastside Planning Area (continued). 














Period 






Alternative" 






Group 1 Species Name Area 2 


Outcome 1 


H 


c 


Al 


A2 


A3 


A4 


A5 


A6 


A7 


CumEff 


1 































2 































3 


50 


25 


20 


25 


25 


25 


20 


25 


30 




4 


50 


60 


55 


60 


60 


60 


55 


60 


60 




5 





15 


25 


15 


15 


15 


25 


15 


10 


REP Night snake BLM/FS 


1 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 




2 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 




3 































4 































5 





























CumEff 


1 


50 




























2 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 




3 





50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 




4 































5 





























REP Painted turtle BLM/FS 


1 


5 























5 




2 


50 


40 


15 


35 


35 


45 


15 


45 


50 




3 


45 


55 


50 


40 


40 


50 


50 


50 


45 




4 





5 


35 


25 


25 


5 


35 


5 







5 





























CumEff 


1 


5 




























2 


50 


20 


10 


20 


20 


20 


13 


20 


20 




3 


45 


35 


20 


30 


30 


40 


20 


40 


45 




4 





45 


40 


30 


30 


40 


40 


40 


35 




5 








30 


20 


20 





28 








REP Rubber boa BLM/FS 


1 































2 


50 














10 





10 


30 




3 


50 


50 


10 


50 


50 


50 


10 


50 


50 




4 





50 


90 


50 


50 


40 


90 


40 


20 




5 





























CumEff 


1 































2 


50 




























3 


50 


50 











10 





10 


30 




4 





50 


10 


50 


50 


50 


10 


50 


50 




5 








90 


50 


50 


40 


90 


40 


20 


REP Sagebrush BLM/FS 


1 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


lizard 


2 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 




3 































4 























. 







5 





























CumEff 


1 


50 




























2 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 




3 





50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 




4 































5 





























REP Sharptail BLM/FS 5 


1 





























snake 


2 































3 


50 








5 


5 


10 





20 


30 




4 


50 


50 


30 


45 


45 


45 


40 


40 


50 




5 





50 


70 


50 


50 


45 


60 


40 


20 



Group 1 Species Name Area 2 



Outcome 3 



Period 
H C 



Al 



A2 



Alternative" 
A3 A4 A5 



A6 A7 



CumEff 



REP 



Short-horned 
lizard 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



REP Striped 

whipsnake 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



REP Western 

pond turtle 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



1 





























2 





























3 


50 


























4 


50 


50 





10 


10 


10 





10 


50 


5 





50 


100 


90 


90 


90 


100 


90 


50 


1 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


2 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


3 





























4 





























5 





























1 


50 


























2 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


3 





50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


4 





























5 





























1 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


2 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


3 





























4 





























5 





























1 


50 


























2 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


3 





50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


4 





























5 





























1 


40 


10 





20 


20 


20 





20 


20 


2 


30 


30 


30 


40 


40 


40 


30 


40 


40 


3 


30 


50 


50 


40 


40 


40 


50 


40 


40 


4 





10 


10 











20 








5 








10 




















1 


40 


























2 


30 


























3 


30 


10 





10 


10 


10 





10 


10 


4 





20 


10 


20 


20 


20 


10 


20 


20 


5 





70 


90 


70 


70 


70 


90 


70 


70 



Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100 points. High scores indicate high likelihood 
of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual likelihood scores of panelists. 

1 Group: AMP - amphibian; REP -reptile. 

2 Area: BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; 
CumEff - all lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area; 

3 Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated: 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation. 

4 Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - Alternative 1; A2 - 
Alternative 2; etc. 

5 Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered 
to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their 
outcomes, or the species ecology. 






























Table 4. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations 


of amphibians 




and reptiles for the Eastside Planning 


Area 












Group 1 


Species Name 


Area 2 


Period 
H C 


Al 


A2 


Alternative 3 
A3 A4 


A5 


A6 


A7 


AMP 


Spotted frog 
species B 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


2.5 
2.5 


3.5 
3.5 


3.9 
4.0 


3.5 
3.6 


3.5 
3.6 


3.5 
3.6 


3.9 
3.9 


3.5 
3.6 


3.4 
3.5 


AMP 


Northern 
leopard frog 


BLM/FS 1 
CumEff 


3.2 
3.2 


4.5 
4.5 


4.7 
5.0 5 


4.5 
5.0 


4.6 
5.0 


4.4 
4.9 


4.7 
5.0 5 


4.4 

4.9 


4.3 
4.9 


AMP 


Spotted frog 
species A 


BLM/FS" 
CumEff 


2.5 
2.5 


3.6 
3.6 


4.1 
4.1 


3.6 
3.7 


3.6 

3.7 


3.4 
3.7 


4.0 
4.0 


3.3 
3.7 


3.1 5 
3.6 


AMP 


Tailed frog 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


2.8 
2.8 


3.2 
3.2 


4.1 5 
4.6 s 


3.2 

3.7 


3.4 
4.0 s 


3.2 
3.8 5 


4.0 5 
4.5 5 


3.2 
3.8 5 


3.0 
3.6 


AMP 


Western toad 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


1.8 
1.8 


2.4 
3.3 


3.4 s 
4.4 5 


2.2 

3.4 


2.3 
3.4 


2.2 

3.4 


3.4 5 
4.3 5 


2.2 
3.4 


2.0 
3.3 


AMP 


Woodhouse's 
toad 


BLM/FS 4 
CumEff 


2.5 
2.5 


3.9 
3.9 


4.5 5 

4.7 5 


4.0 
4.6 5 


4.1 
4.6 5 


3.7 

4.5 5 


4.4 5 
4.7 5 


3.5 
4.5 s 


3.4 
4.5 s 


AMP 


Common 
garter snake 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


1.5 

1.5 


2.5 
3.5 


3.5 5 
4.5 5 


2.5 
3.5 


2.5 

3.5 


2.5 
3.5 


3.5 5 
4.5 5 


2.5 

3.5 


2.5 
3.5 


AMP 


Desert 
horned lizard 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


1.5 
1.5 


1.6 
1.6 


1.6 
1.6 


1.6 
1.6 


1.6 
1.6 


1.6 
1.6 


1.6 
1.6 


1.6 
1.6 


1.5 

1.5 


AMP 


Longnose 
leopard lizard 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


3.5 
3.5 


3.8 
3.9 


4.0 
4.1 


3.8 
3.9 


3.8 
3.9 


3.8 
3.9 


4.0 
4.1 


3.8 
3.9 


3.8 
3.8 


REP 


Night snake 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


1.5 
1.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


REP 


Painted turtle 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


2.4 
2.4 


2.7 
3.3 


3.2 s 
3.9 5 


2.9 
3.5 


2.9 
3.5 


2.6 
3.2 


3.2 5 
3.9 5 


2.6 
3.2 


2.4 
3.2 


REP 


Rubber boa 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


2.5 
2.5 


3.5 
3.5 


3.9 

4.9 5 


3.5 
4.5 5 


3.5 

4.5 s 


3.3 
4.3 5 


3.9 
4.9 s 


3.3 
4.3 5 


2.9 s 
3.9 




Sagebrush 
lizard 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


1.5 

1.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 




"Sharptail 
snake 


BLM/FS 4 
CumEff 


3.5 
3.5 


4.5 
4.5 


4.7 
5.0 5 


4.5 
4.9 


4.5 
4.9 


4.4 
4.9 


4.6 
5.0 5 


4.2 
4.9 


3.9 5 
4.5 


REP 


Short- horned 
lizard 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


1.5 
1.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 




Striped 
whipsnake 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


1.5 
1.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 


1.5 
2.5 




Western 
pond turtle 


BLM/FS 
CumEff 


1.9 
1.9 


2.6 
4.6 


3.0 
4.9 


2.2 

4.6 


2.2 
4.6 


2.2 
4.6 


2.9 

4.9 


2.2 

4.6 


2.2 
4.6 



Mean outcomes were calculated as the weighted mean of average likelihood scores in each outcome. 

1 Group: AMP - amphibian; REP - reptile. 

2 Area: BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; CumEff - 
all lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area. 

3 Period/Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - Alternative 1 ; A2 - 
Alternative 2: etc. 

4 Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered 
to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their 
outcomes, or the species ecology. 

8 Mean outcome for alternative departs form current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.50 units. Outcomes 
reported in table were rounded to 0.1 units; but. differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure 
calculated from the table may be misleading. 



Table 5. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for habitat and species 
groups of waterbirds and shorebirds for the Eastside Planning Area. 



Habitat & Species 
Groups 



Area 1 



Outcome 2 



Period 
H C 



Al 



A2 



Alternative 3 
A3 A4 A5 



A6 



A7 



Group i: 

Open water birds 



Group 2: 

Common loon 



Group 3: 

Wood duck.mergansers 



Group 4: 

Goldeneyes 



Group 5: 

Western snowy plover 



Group 6: 

Harlequin duck 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



BLM/FS 



CumEff 



BLM/FS 



1 





























2 


7 


2 





3 


3 


7 





7 


1 


3 


91 


46 


37 


51 


51 


65 


51 


65 


53 


4 


2 


46 


48 


42 


42 


24 


44 


24 


41 


5 





6 


15 


4 


4 


4 


5 


4 


5 


1 





























1 


2 


3 





4 


4 


9 


1 


9 


2 


3 


90 


51 


43 


49 


49 


59 


47 


59 


53 


4 


8 


38 


44 


42 


43 


28 


50 


28 


40 


5 





8 


13 


5 


4 


4 


2 


4 


5 


1 





























2 











4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


4 


3 


26 


39 


28 


36 


36 


40 


36 


40 


36 


4 


74 


61 


60 


60 


60 


56 


60 


56 


60 


5 








12 




















1 





























2 


6 


16 


10 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


16 


3 


36 


40 


34 


40 


41 


41 


40 


43 


40 


4 


58 


44 


46 


44 


43 


43 


44 


41 


44 


5 








10 




















1 














00 














2 


2 


12 


6 


14 


12 


25 


11 


25 


15 


3 


40 


36 


36 


38 


37 


42 


38 


42 


41 


4 


58 


42 


42 


42 


43 


29 


40 


29 


38 


5 





10 


16 


6 


8 


4 


11 


4 


6 


1 





























2 


l 


9 


5 


11 


10 


22 


9 


22 


13 


3 


36 


34 


33 


38 


37 


41 


38 


43 


41 


4 


63 


46 


39 


45 


44 


33 


41 


31 


40 


5 





11 


23 


6 


9 


4 


12 


4 


6 


1 





























2 





























3 


40 


24 


10 


31 


26 


44 


23 


44 


30 


4 


60 


70 


61 


62 


63 


54 


70 


54 


64 


5 





6 


29 


7 


11 


2 


7 


2 


6 


1 





























2 





























3 


41 


30 


15 


31 


25 


42 


22 


42 


29 


4 


59 


65 


65 


59 


55 


56 


67 


56 


65 


5 





5 


20 


10 


20 


2 


11 


2 


6 


1 





























2 





























3 





























4 


100 


100 


88 


97 


97 


97 


90 


97 


100 


5 








12 


3 


3 


3 


10 


3 





1 





























2 





























3 





























4 


100 


90 


82 


90 


90 


90 


83 


90 


90 


5 





10 


18 


10 


10 


10 


17 


10 


10 


1 





























2 





























3 


60 














50 





50 


19 


4 


40 


50 


19 


60 


56 


50 


50 


50 


57 


5 





50 


81 


40 


44 




■v:":or:v;-'-^v:vV ; : ; : ; : : '/ ; i' : ' ; : : : ; : 

liliSI 


50 





24 



Table 5. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for habitat and species 
groups of waterbirds and shorebirds for the Eastside Planning Area 
(continued). 



Habitat & Species 
Groups 



Area 1 



Outcome 2 



Period 
H C 



Al 



A2 



Alternative 3 
A3 A4 A5 



AS 



A7 



Group 7: 

Herons, egrets 



Group 8: 

Dabbling ducks 



Group 9: 

Spotted sandpiper 



Group 10: 

Greater sandhill crane 



Group 11: 

Rails, avocets 



CumEff 


1 































2 































3 


70 














45 





45 


14 




4 


30 


43 


15 


55 


51 


55 


45 


55 


57 




5 





57 


85 


45 


49 





55 





29 


BLM/FS 


1 































2 































3 


100 


64 


61 


66 


64 


76 


71 


76 


61 




4 





30 


35 


30 


32 


20 


29 


20 


34 




5 





6 


4 


4 


4 


4 





4 


5 


CumEff 


1 































2 





4 


2 


4 


2 


6 


2 


6 


5 




3 


100 


69 


60 


65 


64 


71 


70 


71 


59 




4 





19 


34 


26 


30 


19 


26 


19 


31 




5 





8 


4 


5 


4 


4 


2 


4 


5 


BLM/FS 


1 































2 


30 


12 


9 


12 


11 


11 


10 


11 


11 




3 


70 


58 


46 


67 


67 


73 


52 


73 


65 




4 





28 


41 


19 


20 


16 


38 


16 


24 




5 





2 


4 


2 


2 














CumEff 


1 































2 


44 


16 


12 


15 


13 


15 


13 


15 


13 




3 


56 


57 


42 


62 


64 


67 


55 


67 


66 




4 





25 


42 


22 


22 


18 


32 


18 


21 




5 





2 


4 


1 


1 














BLM/FS 


1 































2 


46 


54 


43 


50 


50 


51 


50 


51 


52 




3 


54 


46 


51 


50 


50 


49 


50 


49 


48 




4 








6 






















5 





























CumEff 


1 































2 


50 


55 


51 


54 


54 


55 


54 


55 


56 




3 


50 


45 


43 


46 


46 


45 


46 


45 


44 




4 








6 






















5 





























BLM/FS 


1 































2 


5 














3 





3 







3 


80 


50 


34 


53 


53 


69 


51 


69 


50 




4 


15 


50 


65 


48 


48 


29 


49 


29 


50 




5 








1 




















CumEff 


1 































2 


8 


3 


4 


3 


3 


5 


3 


5 


3 




3 


79 


56 


39 


56 


56 


70 


55 


70 


54 




4 


14 


41 


56 


41 


41 


25 


43 


25 


44 




5 








1 




















BLM/FS 


1 































2 

















1 





1 







3 


69 


54 


36 


57 


57 


69 


54 


68 


52 




4 


31 


46 


54 


41 


41 


30 


44 


31 


46 




5 








10 


2 


2 





2 





2 


CumEff 


1 































2 


8 


2 


2 


2 


2 


3 


2 


3 


2 




3 


64 


55 


36 


57 


58 


70 


52 


69 


52 




4 


28 


43 


53 


39 


38 


27 


44 


28 


44 




5 








9 


2 


2 





2 





2 



Habitat & Species 






Period 






Alternative 3 






Groups 


Area 1 


Outcome 2 


H 


c 


Al 


A2 


A3 


A4 


A5 


A6 


A7 


Group 12: 
























Curlew, willet 


BLM/FS 


1 

































2 

































3 


28 


10 


3 


13 


13 


21 


9 


21 


9 






4 


73 


90 


95 


88 


88 


79 


91 


79 


89 






5 








3 

















3 




CumEff 


1 

































2 

































3 


33 


14 


5 


16 


16 


24 


13 


24 


13 






4 


68 


86 


93 


84 


84 


76 


88 


76 


85 






5 








3 

















3 


Group 13: 
























Upland sandpiper 


BLM/FS 4 


1 

2 


2 

68 








































3 


30 






























4 











2 


10 


25 


10 


25 


15 






5 





100 


100 


98 


90 


75 


90 


75 


85 




CumEff 


1 


2 






























2 


66 






























3 


32 






























4 











2 


2 


12 





12 


2 






5 





100 


100 


98 


98 


88 


100 


88 


98 


Group 14: 
























Common snipe 


BLM/FS 


1 

































2 


20 


12 


9 


16 


16 


20 


10 


20 


15 






3 


74 


68 


55 


65 


65 


67 


64 


66 


63 






4 


6 


20 


34 


17 


17 


13 


24 


14 


22 






5 








2 


2 


2 





2 










CumEff 


1 

































2 


18 


12 


10 


15 


15 


18 


11 


18 


14 






3 


76 


66 


53 


64 


64 


68 


61 


67 


62 






4 


6 


22 


35 


19 


19 


14 


26 


15 


24 






5 








2 


2 


2 





2 








Group 15: 
























Migrant sandpipers 


BLM/FS 


1 


32 


20 


15 


24 


24 


25 


16 


25 


24 






2 


52 


51 


48 


48 


48 


48 


49 


48 


48 






3 


16 


29 


35 


28 


28 


27 


35 


27 


28 






4 








2 
























5 































CumEff 


1 


36 


25 


17 


25 


25 


26 


21 


26 


25 






2 


50 


53 


53 


53 


53 


53 


52 


53 


53 






3 


14 


22 


28 


22 


22 


21 


27 


21 


22 






4 








2 
























5 






























Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100 points. High scores indicate high likelihood of an 
outcome. Means were calculated from the individual likelihood scores of panelists. 

' Area: BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area. BLM and Forest Service lands only; CumEff - all lands in 
Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area; 

2 Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps: 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated: 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation. 

3 Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period: C - current: Al - Alternative 1; A2 - Alternative 2; etc. 

4 Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a 
misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology. 



.... w«K .. 
sil , . • 



.■:■:■:■,.;,,:■:■,:■;■:■:-:■:■,,.■:■,.;,,:. 



Table 6. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and species groups 


of 




waterbirds and shorebirds for the Eastside Planning 


Area. 








Period